ORDER : 1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 498/2002/A3, dated 12.6.2019 and to quash the same so far as the petitioners-properties bound by the sale deed, dated 12.6.2006 registered as Doc. No. 1002 of 2006, on the file of the second respondent and consequently to direct the second respondent to delete the entries of encumbrance registered by the first respondent on its file in respect of the properties bound by the sale-deed dated 12.6.2006. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petition mentioned properties originally belongs to the third respondent/textile mills. While so, the second Petitioners father-in-law had purchased the said properties by way of sale deed, dated 12.6.2006 vide Doc. No. 1002 of 2006, on the file of the second respondent. After purchase, when it was verified, there is no encumbrance reflected in the register of the second respondent and from the date of purchase, the second respondents father-in-law was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. On 7.5.2021, the second respondent-s father-in- law had passed away leaving behind the second respondents husband and her mother-in-law as his legal heirs. Subsequently on 23.5.2021, second Petitioners husband P. Subramani died leaving behind the second petitioner and her children, the respondents 3 and 4. In respect of the properties of her father-in-law, the second respondent and the Petitioners herein are the legal heirs and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 2013, when the second Petitioner -s husband was alive, he availed credit facilities from Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Oddanchatram Branch and as security, for the repayment of said credit facilities, the second Petitioners father in law had mortgaged the title deeds, dated 3.10.2013 and the said credit facilities were classified as Non performing Assets and had initiated recovery measures. Hence the second Petitioner had approached the Bank for negotiation of settling the debts through one time settlement and the same was sanctioned and the Petitioners are directed to settle a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- on or before 30.09.2022. Hence the second Petitioner had approached the Bank for negotiation of settling the debts through one time settlement and the same was sanctioned and the Petitioners are directed to settle a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- on or before 30.09.2022. When the Petitioners tried to sell the properties to the prospective buyer, the bank has also extended its cooperation and when encumbrance was verified, it was found that there was an encumbrance created by the first respondent in the Petition mentioned properties. When the same was enquired, it was found that the first respondent by its proceedings, dated 12.6.2019 directed the second respondent to register the encumbrance in respect of the Petition mentioned properties and sought to mark a copy to its file. At the time of initial purchase, there was no encumbrance and the subsequent registration of encumbrance is bereft of lawful sanction and the same does not bind the Petitioners absolute right, title and interest over the Petition mentioned properties obtained under the sale deed, dated 12.6.2006.Therefore the prospective buyer is not ready to get the sale deed executed with an encumbrance and the Petitioners were unable to settle the dues to the bank on one time settlement. Hence the Petitioners send a legal notice, dated 17.8.2022 to the respondents to delete the entries of encumbrance in respect of their properties. But no action was taken so far. Hence the Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which, it is stated that the second Petitioner is one of the legal heir of Thiru A. Palanichamy who purchased the petition mentioned properties from the third respondent/Mills who was the assessee under the first respondent and defaulter of tax arrears for 1996-97, 1997-98 to the tune of Rs. 7,68,394/- along with interest at Rs. 43,72,400/- approximately as on the due payable under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act 19459 r/w Section 88 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 7,68,394/- along with interest at Rs. 43,72,400/- approximately as on the due payable under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act 19459 r/w Section 88 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. When the auction proceedings were on, the third respondent had sold the properties to the Petitioners and the same has been purchased by the Petitioners and already the properties have been attached under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 towards the arrears for the year 1993-94 and brought to auction sale as on 26.7.2005 and necessary publicity has also been notified to the public in the District Official Gazette on 10.6.2005 as per Section 24 of the TNGST Act, 1959. Taking undue advantage of the situation that no encumbrance was made over the attached properties towards sales tax arrears, the third respondent had sold the properties in favour of A. Palanisamy fraudulently. Section 43 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 states that - where during the pendency of any proceedings under the Act, or after the completion thereof, any dealer creates a charge on, or parts with the possession by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever of any of his assets in favour of any other person, with an intention to defraud revenue such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax or any other sum payable by the dealer. 5. It is further submitted that the Petitioners- case was considered and all the sale or transfer that is effect will not bind on the respondents 1 and 2 and the first respondent had first priority over the bank. Unless the arrears of tax and other dues are cleared, the encumbrance not created could not be lifted. When the legal heirs of the abettor is ready to pay the bank dues to the extent of 1.50 crores, why do they hesitate to pay the sale tax arrears of Rs.7.68,394 for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 raised before the fraudulent transfer of property is effected. When the legal heirs of the abettor is ready to pay the bank dues to the extent of 1.50 crores, why do they hesitate to pay the sale tax arrears of Rs.7.68,394 for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 raised before the fraudulent transfer of property is effected. The first respondent has further stated that properties in dispute were already attached by the first respondent towards arrears of sale tax on 15.12.2003 by serving Form-IV notice and Form V, VII and VV-A fixing the auction sale date as on 26.7.2005 under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 marking a copy to the revenue officials and the auction sale was posposed on 26.7.2005 by duly notifying the auction sale in the District Official Gazette, dated 10.6.2005 well before the fraudulent and clandestine sale took place on 12.6.2006 and hence, the auction of the assessing authority initiated under Sections 24 and 24-A of the TNVAT Act 2006, r/w Section 88 of the Act is in order, fair and lawful. The third respondent has sold the property to the petitioners herein and as such encumbrance cannot be lifted. 6. On going through the materials available, it is seen that the authorities have initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings. From the documents produced, it is seen that only on 12.6.2019 they have issued notice for marking the encumbrance in the said document to the Sub Registrar, Oddanchatram, Dindigul. Prior to that, there is no such encumbrance found and the Petitioners have purchased the property in the year 2006 from the third respondent. There is no mala-fide intention of cheating by the Petitioners. 7. The third respondent did not appear before this Court, even though notice was served on them and name printed in the cause-list. 8. It is seen that for the issue of tax payable by the third respondent, the authorities have to recover the said amount from the third respondent by Revenue Recovery Proceedings in respect of the remaining lands. It is seen that they have sold part of the land to the Petitioners and remaining land to the extent of 4.30 acres are available for the first respondent for recovery of the said due. The remaining land stands in the name of the third respondent Mills and the respondents No. 1 can auction the remaining land of 4.30 acres that was remaining after sale of land to the Petitioners. The remaining land stands in the name of the third respondent Mills and the respondents No. 1 can auction the remaining land of 4.30 acres that was remaining after sale of land to the Petitioners. As there is no encumbrance produced by the Petitioners, this Court direct the first respondent to proceed further with the Revenue Recovery Proceedings in respect of the lands which are available till date with the third respondent and recover the tax dues by the third respondent. In respect of the Petitioners land, the encumbrance shall be lifted and their names can be deleted from the encumbrance for the said land of the Petitioners. The Petitioners- land is to be deleted from the above attachment under the Revenue Recovery Act by the respondents within a period of four weeks. The first respondent can proceed with the sale of the land vested with the third respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act by attaching the same in the manner known to law. 9. With these directions and observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.