Due process must be followed in property attachments, ensuring only liable shares are encumbered and that claims are adequately investigated before decisions.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the share of the petitioner's property by modifying the 1st respondent order dated 24.02.2018 in CEP No.04/2017-

2018/Sa.Pa.1 by considering the petitioner representation dated 22.05.2024.

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents: Mr.Muthusamy, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.M.S.Palanisamy for R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the share of the petitioner's property by modifying the order of the first respondent, dated 24.02.2018 in CEP.No.04/2017-2018/Sa.Pa.1 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.05.2024.

2. The petitioner’s father, Late Mr.Kuppusamy, owned properties in multiple survey numbers at Thamodharahalli Revenue Village, Krishnagiri District. These properties were self-acquired and inherited through ancestral lineage. Upon his demise, in the year 2005, his legal heirs, the petitioner, his mother, and two brothers, entered into a family arrangement on 11.06.2006, and divide the properties accordingly.

3. In the year 2024, when the petitioner, attempted to develop his property, he discovered that the registration department had encumbered the land due to an attachment order passed in C.E.P.No.4/2017-2018/SA.PA.1 dated 24.02.2018. This order was issued in connection with a claim against the petitioner’s brother (4th respondent) by the 3rd respondent society. However, instead of attaching the share of the 4th respondent alone, the entire property was encumbered, affecting the petitioner and other family members.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the entire property should not have been attached, as it was a family property, and the 4th respondent’s share alone to be subject to attachment. In this connection, the petitioner made a representation on 22.05.2024 before the official respondents requesting modification of the order to exclude his and his family’s rightful shares. However, there is no response on the side of the Respondents 1 & 2. Thought the 3rd respondent admitted that the claim was only against the 4th respondent, refused to take responsibility for attachment. The attachment order violates Article 300-A of the Constitution, depriving the petitioner of his right to the property without due process, which has necessitated the filing of this Writ Petition.

5. At this juncture, reference must be made to Rule 135 of the Rules, which provides that where any claim or objection is made to the attachment of any property attached under those Rules on the ground that such property is not liable to any attachment, it shall be incumbent upon the Sales Officer to investigate the claim or objection and dispose of it on merits. This would obviously mean that the representation dated 24.06.2023 made by the Petitioners to the first Respondent would have to be treated as an application under Rule 135 of the Rules.

6. In such circumstances, this Court without expressing any view on the correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioners, passes the following order:-

(i) it shall be incumbent on the third Respondent to treat the representation dated 24.06.2023 made by the Petitioner as an application under Rule 135 of the Rules, and immediately examine the same and ascertain as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled for the relief claimed;

(ii) if it is found that any other detail or supporting document is necessary, the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less tha