Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 124 (MAD)

Sukumaran Pillai v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-01-06

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

body2025
ORDER : G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent thereby refused to register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner dated 26.09.2024 on the ground that the subject property is under the proposal of attachment in pursuant to the registration of criminal case on the file of the third respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. The property comprised in Old Survey No.1264 (re-survey No.135/22B) to an extent of 27 cents and building, situated at Palugal Village under registered Will deed dated 17.04.1976 executed by the petitioner's since deceased mother, viz., Kunji Amma; the property comprised in Old Survey No.1262 to an extent of 3 cents (At present, as per lie, 4 cents in re-survey No.133/11 and 1 cent in re-survy No. 133/12A), situated at Palugal Village, under the registered Will deed; and the property comprised in old Survey No.1440 (re-survey No. 168/14A) to an extent of 5 cents situated at Palugal village under registered partition deed dated 19.04.1971; the property comprised in old Survey No.1261A (re-survey No.132/12A) to an extent of ¾ cent situated at Palugal village under registered partition deed dated 19.04.1971. In total, the petitioner was entitled to an extent of 37 ¾ cents of land and building. The properties were settled by way of settlement deed dated 28.05.2009 in favour of the petitioner's son. That apart, the property comprised in re-survey No.168/13B situated at Palugal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, to an extent of 7 cents by the registered sale deed dated 17.05.1994. Once again, the petitioner's son had executed settlement deed dated 05.12.2016, in favour of the petitioner in respect of the properties to an extent of 44 ¾ cents. Now, the petitioner intended to settle the property in favour of his grand son and executed settlement deed dated 26.09.2024 and it was presented for registration before the fifth respondent on 01.10.2024. However, the fifth respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the third respondent by its communication dated 30.09.2019 already submitted objections and also the second respondent by its communication dated 02.11.2019 informed the fourth respondent that the subject properties are under the proposal of attachment in pursuant to the registration of criminal case as against the son of the petitioner herein, viz., Rajendran. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 have no authority or jurisdiction to attach the property, the Government only is the authority to attach the property under the TNPID Act. The impugned order of the respondents 4 and 5 are violative of the petitioner's rights, including the fundamental rights and the constitutional rights under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. That apart, the subject property has derived title by the petitioner, that too in the year 1971 and 1976. Those properties were not purchased from any crime proceeds. Therefore, the registering authority should not to have refused to register the settlement deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioner's grand son. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR-2005-SC-3401 (State of Rajasthan and others V. Basant Nahata) , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any substantive provisions contained in a parliamentary or legislative act, he cannot be refrained from dealing with his property in any manner, he likes, such statutory interdict would be opposed to one's right of property as envisaged under Section 300 A of the Constitution of India. 6. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the third respondent, would submit that the petitioner's son is arrayed as fifth accused in Crime No.1 of 2017 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 and Sections 4 and 5(a) of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 on the file of the third respondent. After completion of investigation, the third respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the TNPID Court, Madurai and it is pending for trial. Now, the properties belong to the petitioner and his family members, while identify and sent proposal to attach the subject properties to the Government. Therefore, the third respondent, who is being the investigation officer, in order to protect the interest and general public, sent a communication to the registering authority, not to deal with the subject property by way of registration of any deed of conveyance. 7. Therefore, the third respondent, who is being the investigation officer, in order to protect the interest and general public, sent a communication to the registering authority, not to deal with the subject property by way of registration of any deed of conveyance. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 would submit that on receipt of the objections from the third respondent, the fourth respondent refused to register any deed of conveyance in respect of the subject properties on the ground that the petitioner's son is arrayed as fifth accused. Originally, the properties were settled in favour of the petitioner's son/A5 by the settlement deed dated 28.05.2009. Thereafter, on 05.12.2016, the properties were settled by the petitioner by the Government, in order to save the subject properties from the clutches of law. In turn, the petitioner now settled the properties in favour of his own grand-son, viz., the son of the said Rajendran and executed settlement deed on 26.09.2024 and presented for registration. Therefore, on the communication from the respondents 2 and 3, the registering authority refused to register any deed of conveyance in respect of the subject property. 8. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, which reads as follows: “(ii) where the Government have reason to believe that any Financial Establishment is acting in a calculated manner with an intention to defraud the depositors. and if the Government are satisfied that such Financial Establishment is not likely to return the deposits, tho Government may, in order to protect the interests of the depositors of such Financial Establishment, pass an ad- interim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the Financial Establishment or in the name of any other person from and out of the deposits collected by the Financial Establishment, or if it transpires that such money or other property is not available for attachment or not sufficient for repayment of the deposits, such other property of the said Financial Establishment or the promoter, manager or member of the said Financial Establishment, as the Government may think fit and transfer the control over the add money or property to the Competent authority.” 9. Thus, it is clear that the attachment does not require that the subject property has to be purchased only in the crime proceeds. The attachment can be made in order to protect the interest of depositors, if the other properties available for attachment are not sufficient for payment to the depositors. Admittedly, the subject properties were originally settled in favour of the petitioner's son, who is arrayed as fifth accused in C.C.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the TNPID Court, Madurai, on 17.05.1994. Subsequently, the petitioner's son had executed settlement deed in favour of the petitioner on 05.12.2016 in order to protect the subject property from the clutches of law. In turn, the petitioner now executed a settlement deed in favour of his grand-son, who is the son of the fifth accused. Thus, it is clear that in order to save the properties from the clutches of law, the accused and the petitioner are playing illegality. Therefore, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. 10. That apart, though the respondents 2 and 3 are not competent person to pass attachment order, they are the competent persons under the Act, to identify the properties and sent a proposal for attachment in order to safeguard the interest of general public. Now, the subject properties were identified and had sent proposal to the Government to pass an order of interim attachment. If at all any grievance over the same, the petitioner can approach the concerned Court to raise the attachment order and thereafter he can deal with the properties. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the fourth respondent and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.