Madras High Court
P.Deepa vs The District Collector on 19 June, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.6261 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.6261 of 2025
and WMP No.6882 of 2025
P.Deepa .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri.
2.The Tahsildar
Denkanikottai Taluk
Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of
Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the Notice of Attachment in Form-5 issued
by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, Denkanikottai in Ref.Na.Ka.3341/2024/B2, dated
03.01.2025 for attaching the petitioner's property i.e., S.F.Nos.764/1A, 764/1B and
764/1C (Total - 4 Acres 25 Cents) in Hosapuram Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri
District, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sanjeevi
For Respondents : Mr.Vijay Anand
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
W.P.No.6261 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice of attachment
issued by the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2025 by attaching the property belonging to
the petitioner for recovery of dues.
2.The case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of the subject
property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2020 registered as
D.No.4960/2020 and sale deed dated 23.09.2020 registered as Document
No.6211/2020). The further case of the petitioner is that patta was also issued in her
name.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that a demand notice came to be issued by
the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 [hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act']. The impugned attachment notice was also issued to attach the
property belonging to the petitioner towards the arrears of penalty recoverable from the
husband of the petitioner under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)
Act, 1957.
4.The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit. The respondents have taken a
stand that the petitioner's husband had illegally quarried by violating quarry conditions
and as a result, proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied against the husband
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
of the petitioner. To recover the same, it was seen that only the property which stands
in the name of the petitioner was available. Since the husband did not remit the penalty
amount, the attachment notice was issued in the name of the petitioner. According to
the respondents, the wife did not have any independent income to purchase the
property and it was actually the husband who had purchased the property in the name
of the wife. Therefore, proceedings were initiated to attach the property and to recover
the dues. Accordingly, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of the present
writ petition.
5.Heard Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Vijay Anand,
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6.The short issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to
whether the impugned attachment notice in Form 5 is sustainable in law.
7.To decide the above issue, Section 5 of the Act is extracted hereunder:
5.Arrear of revenue how recovered :- Whenever revenue
may be in arrear, it shall be lawful for the Collector, or other officer
empowered by the Collector in that behalf, to proceed to recover the
arrear, together with [penalty] and costs of process, by the sale of the
defaulter's movable and immovable property, or by execution against
the person of the defaulter in manner hereinafter provided.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
8.The above provision provides for mode of recovery of the dues. A careful
reading of the provision shows that such recovery can be made only by the sale of the
defaulter's movable and immovable property. The defaulter only indicates the person
in whose name the property stands. It may be possible that the ostensible owner may
be the person in whose name the property stands. Particularly in the case of husband
and wife, probably the property would have been purchased in the name of the wife.
However, such issue touching upon binami cannot be gone into by the Collector.
9.This issue is no longer res integra and it is covered by various orders passed by
this Court. Earliest judgment available is that of the Division Bench in C.Dhanalakshmi
Ammal .Vs. Income Tax Officer, II Additional City Circle II, Kilpauk, Madras and
Others reported in AIR 1956 Mad 376. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
5. The Madras Revenue Recovery Act prescribes the procedure
for recovery of arrears of revenue. The recovery can be made in
-different ways; by the seizure and sale of moveable. property; by
attachment and sale of immoveable property; and by execution against
the person of the defaulter. (Vide S.5) Section 25 prescribes the service
of a written demand upon the defaulter, and under Section 26 when the
amount due has not been paid, the Collector can proceed to recover the
arrear by the "attachment and sale of the defaulter's land". The mode of
attachment is laid down in Section 27, There are other provisions relating
to the procedure to be followed on the sale of the attached property.
Section 59 saves the right of parties aggrieved by any proceedings taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
under the Act to apply to the civil Courts for redress though a short
period of limitation of six months from the time at which the cause of
action arose is fixed for the institution of any suit.
6. The contention of Mr; M.K. Nambiar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, was that there is no provision in the Madras Revenue
Recovery Act which enables the Collector to attach and sell" any land
other than the land of the defaulter; and land which is registered in the
name of some one other than the defaulter cannot be deemed to be the
land of the defaulter for the purpose of the Revenue Recovery Act. He
relied on the principle of several decisions of this Court which have held
that "defaulter" can only mean, for the purpose of the Madras Revenue
Recovery Act, the registered proprietor of the land, even though the real
owner may by someone else.
7. In Zamorin of Calicut v. Sitarama, ILR 7 Mad 405 (B), it was
held that where a landholder allows the registry of land to stand in the
name of another and the revenue falls into arrears, a 'sale of the land
under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act (Madras Act II of 1864),
effected after service of notice upon the person in whose name the patta
stands, will pass the landholder's interest to the purchaser at the revenue
sale. In Sampath V. Rajah of yenkatagirt, AIR 1931 Mad 51 (C), Ma-
dhavan Nair J. after referring to earlier authorities, held that where one
person was the real owner and another was the registered proprietor, the
latter and not the former was the "defaulter" within the meaning
of Section 35 of the Revenue Recovery Act (Vide also Venkappa Chari v
pompana Gowd, 1918 Mad WN 191: (AIR 1918 Mad 42) (D).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
We agree with Mr. Nambiar that there is no provision in the Madras
Revenue Recovery Act which enables the Collector to attach and sell
land" not registered in the defaulter's name for arrears of 'revenue due
from the defaulter. In Fadhmanabha v. Visalakshmi, AIR 1938 Mad 283
(E), It was pointed out, though in another connection, that It would not
be competent to the Collector to go into the question of benami.
10.The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the similar provision under
the The Madras Revenue Recovery Act held that the Collector can attach and sell only
the property belonging to the defaulter for recovering the arrears of revenue due from
the defaulter. It is not within the competence of the Collector to go into the question of
binami.
11.All the judgments only go by the language that has been used under Section
5 of the Act. Unfortunately, the State Government has not thought it fit to even amend
this provision and it continues with the same language till date. Therefore, a Court
cannot read something which is not provided under Section 5. A Court cannot enlarge
the scope of the provision when it is understood in a particular manner while the same
is read in the simple language as provided under the provision.
12.In the light of the above discussion, the steps taken by the respondents to
attach the property belonging to the petitioner to recover the revenue is unsustainable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
and beyond the scope of Section 5 of the Act. Hence, the impugned notice of
attachment issued under Form 5 by the 2nd respondent dated 24.12.2024, is hereby
quashed and this writ petition stands allowed. It goes without saying that if ultimately
the respondents are able to identify any property belonging to the defaulter, it is left
open to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law.
13.This writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kp
To
1.The District Collector
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri.
2.The Tahsildar
Denkanikottai Taluk
Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
kp
19.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:06:18 pm )
