RAJA Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari by calling for the records relating to the un -numbered Form -I dated 1.6.2000 issued under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 on the file of the first respondent herein in respect of S.No.236/1, Ulipuram Village, Gangavalli Taluk, quash the same.

(2.) HEARD both sides. The property, which is the subject -matter of this writ petition, was sought to be attached by the first respondent by issuing order in Form No.I dated 1.6.2000 invoking Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, which is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) MR . Muruga Manickam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that except the impugned communication, no notice or order was issued to the petitioners relating to the issue involved in this writ petition; that the first respondent issued the impugned order to attach the immovable property of the petitioners comprised in Survey No.236/1, which was purchased by them on 11.3.1996; that in the impugned order the name of the petitioners' vendor alone is mentioned and the petitioners' name is not found; that the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount to any authorities; that in the impugned order, it is alleged that the petitioners' vendor was liable to pay certain arrears of stamp duty to the authorities under the Registration Act; that in such event, the said authorities ought to have issued a certificate as contemplated under Section 33 -A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for which prior enquiry, that too within three years from the date of registration of the document are required, but those mandatory conditions were not complied with by the respondents prior to the issuance of the impugned order, moreover, the respondents cannot proceed against the property of the petitioners, as the same was transferred in their name as early as 1996; that assuming for argument sake if Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 is applicable, then there should be a notice of demand in writing by the respondents but no such demand in writing has been served on the petitioners and prayed for allowing the writ petition.