Judgment : In this writ petition the petitioner prayed to call for the records in Mu.Mu. No.20147 of 1986 dated 12. 1987 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri and issue a writ of certiorari and quash the same. .2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition could be gathered from the affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has stated that the 3rd respondent one Ramanujam has obtained a sum of Rs.10,000 under a registered mortgage deed dated 11. 1973 under a simple mortgage. The period of redemption was fixed at three years. But the third respondent did not pay any interest towards the mortgage money nor he has taken any steps for redeeming the mortgage. The total area comprised in the mortgage deed is over O.40 acres of punja land consisting of a well and a pumpset, the value of the property being more than Rs.80,000 and the income from the property is more than Rs.10,000 per year. In spite of so much of income the 3rd respondent did not pay the mortgage debt. However, he filed a petition before the 2nd respondent claiming the relief under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980. The 2nd respondent by its proceedings dated 2. 1981 came to the conclusion that the 3rd respondent was not entitled to the benefits of the Act 13 of 1980 as he was possessed of above 9.40 acres of land and also the income was more than Rs.10,000 per annum and on that ground dismissed the petition. Against the said order of dismissal by the 2nd respondent the third respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also after carefully considering all the relevant materials, and analysing the facts after giving opportunity to the concerned parties came to the conclusion that the 3rd respondent was not entitled to the benefits of the Act 13 of 1980 as amended as he had properties, the value of which was more than Rs.25,000. Accordingly the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal. The resultant position was that the 3rd respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the Act 13 of 1980 (amended by Act 10 of 1981). The 3rd respondent did not prefer any writ petition against the order dated 3. 1982 passed by the 1st respondent and the said order has become final. .3. The resultant position was that the 3rd respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the Act 13 of 1980 (amended by Act 10 of 1981). The 3rd respondent did not prefer any writ petition against the order dated 3. 1982 passed by the 1st respondent and the said order has become final. .3. As the third respondent had neither made any attempt to redeem the mortgage nor he paid any interest in the year 1985, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri praying for a preliminary decree for redemption or for payment of mortgage money in the alternative the 3rd respondent was served with summons. He did not appear before the Court and hence a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 29. 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the filing of the writ petition a final decree was passed on 29. 1989. The 3rd respondent did not file any application for setting aside the said order nor file any appeal against the said decree. In the meantime he had filed I.P.No.1 of 1982 to declare him as insolvent on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri and he had been declared as insolvent by an order dated 21. 1983. The Civil Court has conclusively held that the petitioner is entitled for the redemption of the mortgage money by the 3rd respondent and in his failure to do so the petitioner is entitled to bring the property for sale for the alleged money due to him. The affidavit further reads that the 3rd respondent after failing in all his attempts to get the benefit of the relief under the Debt Relief Act on 111. 1983 filed another petition before the 2nd respondent claiming the same relief under the Debt Relief Act. The present contention taken by the 3rd respondent was that as he had sold some of the landed property to third party and had partition and of some of the properties with his sons and as a result he has been left with only two acres of land in his possession and hence he is entitled for the relief under the Debt Relief Act 50 of 1982, which came into force on 28. 1982. 1982. It is pertinent to mention here that the sale and partition alleged by the 3rd respondent were the subject matter of a mortgage to the petitioner and it is not open to the 3rd respondent to encumber those properties without clearing the debt. The 2nd respondent without considering the binding nature of the earlier proceedings and without understanding the scope of the claim put forth by the petitioner allowed the petition filed by the 3rd respondent by his order dated 30.9.1986. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also in a non-speaking order, dismissed the appeal by an order dated 12. 1987. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the relief which I have mentioned above. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the affidavit and the relevant papers. The main ground of attack of learned counsel for the petitioner were that the Authorities below were not justified in entertaining the application filed under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act 50 of 1982 ignoring the earlier proceedings such as application filed under the provisions of Act 13 of 1980 and the decree passed in the civil litigation. He further submitted that in view of Sec.4(2) and also Sec.5(c) of the Act 50 of 1982 the present application should not have been entertained by the respondents. 5. He invited my attention to Sec.3 (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1982, which reads as follows: ‘‘Whether individually or jointly owns in this state or elsewhere any other immovable property (other than agricultural lands), the market value exceeds Rs.25,000. Further he took me to Sec.4 (2) of the said Act. Sec.4 (2) reads as follows: "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any debtor who is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Presidency Act 31 of 1976), Debt Relief Act 1980 (Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980). Further he took me to Sec.4 (2) of the said Act. Sec.4 (2) reads as follows: "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any debtor who is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Presidency Act 31 of 1976), Debt Relief Act 1980 (Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980). Only in so far as any debt to which any of these Acts applied." Further he also took me through Sec.5 (c) of the said Act, which reads as follows: "Every such application shall be made before the expiry of the period of six months from the 24th August, 1982 provided that the Tahsildar may in his discretion allow further time not exceeding one month for making any such application, if he satisfies that the debtor has sufficient cause for not making application in time, but no application shall be made after the expiry of seven months from the 24th August, 1982. Placing reliance on the provisions of this section learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application filed by the 3rd respondent in the year 1986 should not have been entertained by the 2nd respondent, the Special Tahsildar for Debt Relief. On those grounds he submitted that it is a fit case where this Court should interference and quash the impugned orders. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the provisions of Sec.4 (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1982 will not be applicable, He submitted that on the facts placed before the Authority, they have extended the benefit to the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Debt Relief of Act, 1982 and there is no scope for this Court to intervene under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds he has submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Now let me consider the rival submissions. There is no dispute that the 3rd respondent had filed an application under the provisions of the Act 13 of 1980 which was dismissed, which was confirmed in appeal and has become final and no writ petition was filed though the 3rd respondent has lost the benefit under the said provisions of the Act 13 of 1980. Further, there is a final decree passed by the competent authority on 29. 1989 which has also become final. Further, there is a final decree passed by the competent authority on 29. 1989 which has also become final. Now, the 3rd respondent has filed the application taking advantage of the provisions of the Act 50 of 1982. According to Sec.5 (c) of the said Act, the said application should have been filed within a period of six months i.e., on 22. 1983. Further, discretion has been given for the 4th respondent to extend this period by 7 months from 28. 1982 if he is satisfied that the debtor had sufficient cause for not making the application in time. In the present case, the application was filed in the year 1986 beyond the period of limitation. Hence the second respondent could not have entertained the said application. Further, according to Sec.4 (2) of the said Act, the 2nd Respondent could not have entertained such application once the said benefit was exhausted by the debtor. Under these circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 were not justified in allowing the application. 8. Hence for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the order dated 12. 1987 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri in Mu.Mu.No.20147 of 1986 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.9.1986 in D.R.P. No.1032 of 1983. B-3. However, there will be no order as to costs.