Madras High Court
V.Gopalakrishnan vs The District Collector on 30 September, 2021
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.23754 of 2013 and
MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
V.Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Collectorate Compound,
Coimbatore
2.The Tahsildar,
Mettupalayam Taluk,
Mettupalayam
3.K.Vijayachandran
4.S.Murugesan
5.J.Arul Raj
6.N.Muthusamy
7.M.Hammed
8.S.Parameswaran
9.P.Muthaiah
10.R.Duraisamy
11.A.Venkatachalapathy
12.P.Kandasamy
13.V.K.Palanisamy
14.K.Namadevan
15.S.Selvaraj
16.K.Rajamani
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
17.P.N.Thangaraj
18.C.S.Gopalakrishnan
19.A.Vadivelu
20.K.Guruvayurappan
21.N.C.Ponmalai
22.K.M.Gopalan
23.S.Ambrose
24.A.Palanisamy
25.V.Natarajan
26.T.N.Murugesan
27.P.Shanmugasundaram
28.K.Nagaraj
29.R.Thiruvengadam
30.N.Muralidharan
31.P.Pargunaan
32.R.Sureshkumar
33.E.Murugesan
34.C.Murugan
35.R.Govindaraj
36.J.Abraham
37.P.Dhanasekaran
38.A.Guruvayurappan
39.V.K.Gopalakrishnan
40.S.Senthamizh Selvan
41.R.Ponnusamy
42.D.Rangasamy
43.P.Appadurai
44.R.Subbaiyan
45.P.Kumarasamy
46.M.Devarasu
47.R.Velsamy
48.T.Jesudoss
49.M.S.Thaniaslas
50.N.Kannappan
51.T.N.Nanjayan
52.R.Nagarajan
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
53.K.Mayilsamy
54.A.Ramachandran
55.V.Rangaraj
56.A.Sampath
57.V.M.Kandasamy
58.V.Selvaraj
59.K.Manicka Vasagam
60.S.Selvaraj
61.N.Devaraj
62.G.K.Krishnan
63.V.Gunasekaran
64.T.Ilangovan
65.M.Subramaniam
66.N.Selvaraj
67.R.Ramachandran
68.K.Srinivasan
69.R.Rajan
70.R.Subramaniyam
71.M.Chockalingam
72.T.N.Murugesan
73.P.Mohanraj
74.U.S.Selvaraj
75.G.Palanisamy
76.R.Bangarusamy
77.S.Palanisamy
78.B.Ravichandran
79.N.Rangaraj
80.P.K.Palanisamy
81.P.Kalichamy
82.N.Chinnasamy
83.P.Ramasamy
84.R.Selvan
85.R.Rajvelan
86.P.Rajendran
87.P.Nagaraj
88.S.Velmani
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
89.V.Mayilsamy
90.T.R.Duraisamy
91.K.M.Palanisamy
92.R.Ponnusamy
93.R.Mohanarangam
94.V.Balakrishnan
95.R.Mani
96.K.Velan
97.AKrishnamoorthy
98.K.Sundaram
99.K.Raghu
100.R.Ramesh
101.B.S.Selvaraj
102.M.Mani
103.M.Duraisamy
104.V.Natraj
105.R.Sundaram
106.V.Vasudevan
107.T.Murugesan
108.A.Dasappan
109.R.Sarveswaran
110.K.Subramani
111.K.Arumugam
112.T.Rajendran
113.C.N.Chidambaranath
114.K.Kuppusamy
115.P.Udayakumar
(R3 to 115 impleaded as respondents vide
order dated 30.09.2021 in WMP.No.
40099 of 2018 in WP.No.23754 of 2013) ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second
respondent pertaining to the Notice of Attachment dated 14.08.2013 issued
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
in Form 5 under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Valliappan
For Respondents
For R1 & 2 : Mr.M.R,Gokul Krishnan,
Government Advocate
For R3 to115: Mr.R.M.D.Nazarullah
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling
for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the Notice of
Attachment dated 14.08.2013 issued in Form 5 under Section 27 of the
Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was one of the Director of
M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works Limited. It was engaged in
the sale of machine parts by engaging more than 400 workers. However, the
Company suffered losses and ultimately it was closed down on 28.03.1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
Due to non payment of salaries, several employees as respondents 3 to 115
filed different computation petitions before the Labour Court under Section
33(c) (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several awards have been
passed and the respondents 3 to 115 are entitled for amounts claimed by
them. In the computation petitions, Labour Court passed award by
specifically holding that the award is passed only against the Company i.e.
M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works Limited and not as against
the individual capacity of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the salary of the
employees have to be settled by the Company and not by the petitioner out
of his separate properties. The petitioner has purchased the properties by the
registered sale deeds dated 12.04.1973 and 21.05.1974 comprised in
SF.No.198/3, 200/2, 203/2, 204(part), 205, 208, 165, 167/3, 168/2, 202 and
222/2, Odandurai Village, Mettupalayam. These properties are nothing to do
with the Company and subsequently the petitioner settled these properties in
his daughter's favour i.e. Gayathri under the settlement deed dated
04.04.2007. Even then, the second respondent issued the impugned order of
attachment made under Section 27 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 in
Form No.5 to attach the properties purchased in his individual name.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
3. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the Labour Court by order dated 31.08.2009 passed order in
the computation petitions and specifically referred that the respondents 3 to
115 are entitled to monetary claim from the management of the Company by
name M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works Limited and
Mr.V.Gopalakrishnan who is the Chairman cum Director of the said
Company is not personally liable to pay to the respondents 3 to 115.
Therefore, the order can be passed only as against the Company and not as
against the petitioner herein in his individual capacity. Even then, the
second respondent issued the impugned notice of attachment to attach the
property which were purchased by the petitioner on his individual capacity
for attachment. He further submitted that before issuing Form No.5 as
contemplated under Section 27 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the
respondent ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under
Sections 25 and 26 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Before attachment of the
property, the demand to be served. Thereafter, if the said demand is not paid
or not arranged for securing the same shall have been entered into, to the
satisfaction of the Collector in that behalf, he shall proceed to recover the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
arrear by the attachment and sale of the defaulters' land. In the case on hand,
the second respondent did not follow the procedure as contemplated under
the Revenue Recovery Act.
3.1 He further submitted that his daughter already filed writ petition
before this Court in WP.No.4214 of 2009 for mandamus restraining the
second respondents from seizure and distress sale of the subject property.
However, the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 10.12.2009.
While dismissing the writ petition, this Court observed that the Government
passed order on 07.02.2007 and the settlement deed is came to be signed
only on 04.04.2007. Therefore, the demand made by the his daughter only
to scuttle the revenue recovery proceedings with untenable contentions is
not permissible. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's daughter preferred
writ appeal in WA.No.624 of 2010 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
court also held that as to whether the property in question was a self
acquired property or family property or acquired by the petitioner's father in
the capacity of Director of the Company, cannot be gone into by this Court
particularly when earlier Government orders were not challenged by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
petitioner. Moreover, the property was transferred after the Government
Orders were issued. Hence, the writ appeal was also dismissed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.09.2010. Therefore,
though the petitioner settled the property in favour of his daughter, now the
impugned order has been issued by the second respondent to attach the
property which was originally purchased in the name of the petitioner's
individual capacity.
4. Per contra, the second respondent filed counter and Mr.M.R.Gokul
Krishnan, Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner employed
more than 400 employees in his Company by name M/s.Shri Lakshmi
Gayathri Engineering Works Limited, which was closed in the year 1998.
The petitioner also failed to pay any salary and other entitlement to his
labourers and as such they were constrained to approach the Labour Court
with computation petitions. The Labour Court passed orders in favour of
employees and subsequently approached the Government of Tamil Nadu to
execute the judgment. After satisfying the order produced by the labourers,
the Government passed orders on 07.02.2007, 10.07.2007 and 19.07.2007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
as per Industrial Disputes Rules and directed the respondents to recover the
amount from the Company as per the Revenue Recovery Act. When the first
respondent collected details of the immovable properties of the Company,
except the land situated in Bilichi Village, there was no other property.
Even the said property was also attached by the Bank of Baroda,
Coimbatore Branch and sold out for Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Subsequently on
searching the entire Coimbatore District, the first respondent came to
understand that the petitioner was owning the subject property. Therefore,
the first respondent found passed orders and empowered the second
respondent to take action to seize and sell subject property. Accordingly,
the second respondent initiated to cease and distress sale of the said
properties. During the said process, on 05.02.2009 the second respondent
visited the subject property and issued notice to the person who managed
the said property. He refused to receive the said notice and as such notice
dated 10.02.2009 was affixed in the subject property. However, the said
person approached the second respondent and collected all the details of the
proceedings. While being so, the petitioner's daughter filed writ petition in
WP.No.4214 of 2009 before this Court and got dismissed. Aggrieved by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
same, she filed writ appeal in WA.No.624 of 2010 and the same was also
dismissed and in fact she approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
SLP.No.34895 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed by order dated
01.04.2013. Therefore, the intention of the company is not to pay anything
to the employees since the petitioner settled the property in favour of his
own daughter after Government Order dated 07.02.2007. Now, again the
petitioner challenged the attachment notice on the ground that the subject
properties are purchased in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of
the Company.
5. Mr.R.M.D.Nazarullah, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to
115 submitted that the Company was closed illegally by management
without getting any prior permission from the Government as per Section
25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, they were
constrained to approach the Labour Court seeking computation of arrears of
wages due to them from the date of the illegal closure from 28.03.1998.
The Labour Court considered their claim and allowed their claim and
directed the management of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
Limited to pay arrears of wages from the date of illegal closure to the date
of their claim petitions. Since the petitioner did not comply with the order
passed by the Labour Court, they approached the Government to issue
recovery certificate to the first respondent to recover the amount under the
Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly, the Government passed orders
directing the first respondent to recover the amount computed by the Labour
Court in their favour. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have initiated
action under the Revenue Recovery Act to attach the property purchased by
the petitioner. After fully knowing the Government order dated 07.02.2007,
the petitioner fraudulently executed settlement deed in favour of his
daughter in respect of the subject property by the settlement deed dated
04.04.2007. On the strength of the settlement deed, his daughter challenged
the recovery proceedings before this Court in WP.No.4214 of 2009 and the
same was dismissed by this Court and confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. Therefore, the present writ petition is nothing but clear abuse
of process of law since already revenue recovery proceedings was
challenged in the name of his daughter and it is nothing but second round of
litigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
6. Heard, Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents 1 & 2, and Mr.R.M.D.Nazarullah, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 3 to 115..
7. The petitioner is the Chairman cum Director of the Company i.e.
M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works Limited. It was closed down
on 28.03.1998. Due to non payment of salaries, the respondents 3 to 115
approached the Labour Court and filed computation petitions. All the
petitions were allowed and even then, the Company did not pay the salaries
as awarded by the Labour Court. The respondents 3 to 115 were constrained
to approach the Government to issue recovery certificate to the first
respondent under Section 33 (c ) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
recovering the arrears of wages from the management as computed by the
Labour Court under Section 33 (c ) (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Government of Tamilnadu had issued three recovery certificates vide
GO.D.No.84 dated 07.02.2007, G.O.D.No.521 dated 10.07.2007 and
G.O.D.No.554 dated 19.07.2007 thereby directed the first respondent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
recover the amount computed by the Labour Court in their favour.
Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 had initiated the proceedings under the
Revenue Recovery Act to attach the subject property. Though the said
properties were purchased by the petitioner on his individual capacity, he
was the Managing Director of the said property and after order passed by
the Government dated 07.02.2007, the petitioner has settled the subject
property in favour of his daughter one, Gayathri after knowing the fact that
the respondents 1 and 2 have initiated proceedings under the Revenue
Recovery Act, his daughter filed writ petition in WP.No.4214 of 2009 and
this Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 10.12.2009 and this
Court observed as follows:
9.In the present case, the first order of the
Government is dated 07.02.2007 and the settlement deed is
came to be signed only on 04.04.2007. Therefore, the
judgment relied on by the learned counsel is not applicable
to the facts of the present case.
10. Further unless basic orders of the Government
ordering revenue recovery are not under challenge the
consequential orders alone cannot be attacked.
11. The impleaded respondents, who are the affected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
workmen had also filed an affidavit by one
K.Vijayachandran, who has been impleaded as the fourth
respondent. It is stated by him that the workmen had moved
the Labour Court under Section 33 C (2), claiming amounts
due to the illegal closure made by M/s.Sri Lakshmi
Gayathri Engineering Works Ltd., as per Section 25(o) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their claim petitions in
CP.Nos.3 to 109 / 2006, 206/2003 to 215/2003 and
332/2003, CP.Nos.370/2006 to 372/2006 were ordered by
the Labour Court, Coimbatore. In all these cases, the
management was a party. Only when the amounts were not
paid, they took recourse to the revenue recovery
proceedings. It is also stated that the company was closed
as early as on 28.03.1998 and after a lapse of 11 years, the
employees have not received one paise from their employer.
12.In such circumstances, the attempt made by the
petitioner, to scuttle the revenue recovery proceedings with
untenable contentions is not permissible. Hence, writ
petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Aggrieved by the same, she also preferred writ appeal in WA.No.624 of
2014 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also dismissed the same
by order dated 23.09.2010 and held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
The short point that falls for consideration – as to
whether the property in question was a self acquired property
or family property or acquired by the petitioner's father in
the capacity of Director of the Company, cannot be gone into
by this Court particularly when earlier Government orders
were not challenged by the petitioner. Moreover, the property
was transferred after the Government Orders were issued.
Taking into consideration all these facts, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned
single Judge. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and it is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
8. Thus, it is clear that only to avoid the revenue recovery
proceedings, the petitioner settled the subject property in favour of his
daughter by the settlement deed dated 04.04.2007. Therefore, the second
respondent now issued demand notice to the petitioner as contemplated
under Section 27 of the Revenue Recovery Act.
9. The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the ground
that the respondents 1 and 2 failed to follow the procedure under Sections
25 and 26 of the Revenue Recovery Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
10. On perusal of the records, revealed that the Government have
passed order on 07.02.2007, 10.07.2007 and 19.07.2007 thereby directed
the respondents 1 and 2 to recover the award amount under the Revenue
Recovery Act. After knowing the said Government Order, the petitioner
herein cleverly settled the subject property in favour of his daughter by
settlement deed dated 04.04.2007. Therefore, he was fully aware of the
Government order and the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents
1 and 2 herein. That apart, on 05.02.2009, the second respondent visited the
property and issued notice to one, Singaraj who was alleged to be Manager
of the said subject property. He refused to receive the said notice and as
such it was affixed on the subject property. On the next day, the said person
approached the second respondent for collecting all the details of the
proceedings. Immediately, the writ petition in WP.No.4214 of 2009 was
filed by this daughter. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot raise the ground
that the first and second respondents did not follow the procedure as
contemplated under Sections 25 and 26 of the Revenue Recovery Act.
Further, except the subject property, there are no other property and as such
the first and second respondents have rightly proceeded to attach the subject
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
property now stand in the name of the petitioner's daughter. Now his
daughter has challenged the revenue recovery proceedings and failed before
this Court and also upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in this writ
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Senior
Counsel submitted that out of 324 employees, Company have already settled
the entire dues in respect of 161 employees and in respect of remaining 163
employees, steps are being taken by the Company to settle their dues. He
seeks further time to settle the entire amount and till then, the recovery
proceedings may be stayed.
12. It is seen that the Company was closed on 28.03.1998 and the
Labour Court passed award on 31.08.2009. Therefore, the poor employees
i.e. the respondents 3 to 115 are suffering for the past two decades.
Considering the same, the petitioner is directed to settle the entire dues to
the respondents 3 to 115 within a period of three months from today. Till
then, the respondents 1 and 2 are refrained from proceeding under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
Revenue Recovery Act i.e. on or before 31.12.2021. If the petitioner fails to
settle the entire dues to the respondents 3 to 115 on or before 31.12.2021,
the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to initiate further proceedings to attach
the subject property belong to the petitioner in the manner known to law.
13. With the above directions, this writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to
costs.
30.09.2021
lok (2/2)
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.23754 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Collectorate Compound,
Coimbatore
2.The Tahsildar,
Mettupalayam Taluk,
Mettupalayam
W.P.No.23754 of 2013
30.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
