The court ruled that property cannot be attached for the debts of a spouse if it is not registered in the name of the debtor, emphasizing the principle of property ownership under the Revenue Recovery Act.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice of attachment issued by the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2025 by attaching the property belonging to the petitioner for recovery of dues.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2020 registered as D.No.4960/2020 and sale deed dated 23.09.2020 registered as Document No.6211/2020). The further case of the petitioner is that patta was also issued in her name.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that a demand notice came to be issued by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The impugned attachment notice was also issued to attach the property belonging to the petitioner towards the arrears of penalty recoverable from the husband of the petitioner under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)

Act, 1957.

4.The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit. The respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner's husband had illegally quarried by violating quarry conditions and as a result, proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied against the husband of the petitioner. To recover the same, it was seen that only the property which stands in the name of the petitioner was available. Since the husband did not remit the penalty amount, the attachment notice was issued in the name of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the wife did not have any independent income to purchase the property and it was actually the husband who had purchased the property in the name of the wife. Therefore, proceedings were initiated to attach the property and to recover the dues. Accordingly, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of the present writ petition.

5.Heard Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6.The short issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the impugned attachment notice in Form 5 is sustainable in law. 7.To decide the above issue, Section 5 of the Act is extracted hereunder:

5.Arrear of revenue how recovered :- Whenever revenue may be in arrear, it shall be lawful for the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, to proceed to recover the arrear, together with [penalty] and costs of process, by the sale of the defaulter's movable and immovable property, or by execution against the person of the defaulter in manner hereinafter provided.

8.The above provision provides for mode of recovery of the dues. A careful reading of the provision shows that such recovery can be made only by the sale of the defaulter's movable and immovable property. The defaulter only indicates the person in whose name the property stands. It may be possible that the ostensible owner may be the person in whose name the property stands. Particularly in the case of husband and wife, probably the property would have been purchased in the name of the wife.

However, such issue touching upon binami cannot be gone into by the Collector.

9.This issue is no longer res integra and it is covered by various orders passed by this Court. Earliest judgment available is that of the Division Bench in C.Dhanalakshmi Ammal .Vs. Income Tax Officer , II Additional City Circle II, Kilpauk, Madras and Others reported in AIR 1956 Mad 376. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

5. The Madras Revenue Recovery Act prescribes the procedure for recovery of arrears of revenue. The recovery can be made in -different ways; by the seizure and sale of moveable. property; by attachment and s