(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.30548 of 2024.)

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.30548 of 2024, dismissing the Writ Petition, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

2. The above said Writ Petition has been filed by the appellant herein for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2, to raise the attachment in respect of the property comprised in UDR S.Nos.71/2A1A to 71/2A1M, Vilangudi II Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

3. The following facts are necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal:

               3.1. An extent of 1.95 acres in R.S.No.247/2 now comprised in UDR Survey No.71/2A situated at Vilangudi II Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District originally owned by one M/s.Visalakshi Mills Private Limited. Adjacent to the said property, an extent of 42 cents in R.S.No.236/4, presently UDR Survey No.62/4B was owned by one Muniyammal. Both the properties were exchanged by their respective owners by the exchange deed dated 25.11.1996. Accordingly M/s. Visalakshi Mills Private Limited became the absolute owner of the property comprised in R.S.No.236/4 present UDR Survey No.62/4B to an extent of 42 cents situated at Vilangudi II Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. The said Muniyammal became the absolute owner of the property comprised in R.S.No.247/2 now comprised in UDR Survey No.71/2A admeasuring to an extent of 1 acre situated at Vilangudi II Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. The remaining extent of 95 cents stands retained by M/s.Visalakshi Mills Private Limited. The Writ Petitioner purchased 1 Acre of land from the said Muniyammal on 11.05.2007, after sub-division as UDR.Survey No. 71/2A1 and the Writ Petitioner was also issued Patta No.1000.

               3.2. In the meanwhile M/s.Visalakshi Mills Private Limited was ordered to be wound up in C.P.No.78 of 2008 by the Principal Bench of this Court. In pursuant to which, the remaining property belongs to M/s. Visalakshi Mills Private Limited was brought for auction. While bringing the property of M/s. Visalakshi Mills Private Limited for auction, the property that originally belonged to Muniyammal and was later purchased by the writ petitioner was also shown as part of the remaining property of M/s. Visalakshi Mills Private Limited. In a public auction, the said property including the Writ Petitioner's property was purchased by M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner filed an application in C.A.No.405 of 2013 in C.P.No.78 of 2008. This Court, by Order dated 27.09.2013, allowed the application filed by the Writ Petitioner and directed the Official Liquidator to refund the sale consideration to the auction purchaser viz., M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited and also directed the auction purchaser to release and relinquish its right in favour of the Writ Petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of 1 acre comprised in R.S.No.247/2 under UDR Survey No. 71/2A situated at Vilangudi II Bit Village, Madurai. Accordingly, the sale consideration was returned to the auction purchaser. Further the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser was also not registered and the same was kept pending on the file of the third respondent.

               3.3. In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser viz., M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited came under the purview of the respondents 1 and 2 by involving a criminal case. In pursuant to which, the property owned by the auction purchaser viz., M/sDisc Assets Lead India Limited was attached and about to bring the same for auction sale by the administrator appointed by the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 8084 of 2017, including the property which was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. Further, the Writ Petitioner also filed an impleading petition to implead him in W.M.P.No.6892 of 2022 in W.P.No.8084 of 2017 and also sought for direction and injunction in W.M.P.Nos.9381 and 9386 of 2022, before the Principal Bench, where Company Petition is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to raise the attachment in respect of the subject property. Since the same was not considered, the Writ Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of the case, held that, though the Company Court had directed the Official Liquidator to refund the sale consideration to the auction purchaser, viz., M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited, and upon such payment the auction purchaser was to release and relinquish its rights in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner, the auction purchaser had not relinquished its rights by executing a release deed in respect of the subject property. Further, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner had also approached the Principal Bench of this Court by way of miscellaneous petitions in W.M.P. Nos. 6892, 9381, and 9386 of 2022, the petitioner’s representation could not be considered. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal

5. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Company Court, in C.A. No. 405 of 2013 in C.P. No. 78 of 2008, by order dated 27.09.2013, has clearly held that the properties of third parties were also included in the sale, and accordingly directed the refund of the sale consideration to the auction purchaser, as well as the relinquishment of its rights. Later, the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the matter in W.M.P.Nos.9381 and 9386 of 2022 in W.P.No.8084 of 2017, has clearly held that the appellant is stranger to the litigation and in fact, sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser also amended excluding the property purchased by the appellant. Such being the position, the attachment order passed by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the property, which is unconnected with the alleged crime, is not valid in the eye of law. Hence, a direction is sought to remove the attachment.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, has already confirmed the attachment order as early as on 22.12.2021. Hence, seeks for dismissal of this Writ Appeal.

7. We have perused the entire materials available on record.

8. The appellant has filed the writ petition seeking a direction against respondents 1 and 2 for removal of the attachment. The fact remains that the subject property to an extent of 1 acre purchased by the appellant has been wrongly included and sold in a public auction in a company petition. The appellant has purchased the subject property to an extent of 1 acre situated in R.S.No.247/2 now comprised in UDR Survey No.71/2A from one Muniyammal. However, one M/s.Visalaskhi Mills Private Limited had retained the remaining extent of 95 cents and the said company has been wound up in C.P.No.78 of 2008 by the Principal Bench of this Court. In the said proceedings, the property already exchanged in favor of one Muniyammal was also shown as property of M/s.Visalaskhi Mills Private Limited and sold to M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited. Meanwhile, the appellant has purchased the property on 11.05.2007 itself. After realizing that in the sale, the appellant's property has been wrongly included, the appellant also filed an application in C.A.No.405 of 2013 in C.P.No.78 of 2008. This Court, realising that Muniyammal was the original owner and she sold the property to the appellant, by order dated 27.09.2013, directed the Official Liquidator to refund a sum of Rs.2,28,87,635/- to the auction purchaser.

9. Later, in W.P.No.8084 of 2017, miscellaneous applications have been filed in W.M.P.Nos.9381 & 9386 of 2002, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.03.2025, realizing the mistake, has held that the appellant is a stranger to the litigation and directed the Administrator Committee to amend the sale certificate dated 11.02.2022, suitable so as to substitute UDR S.No.71/2A2 instead of UDR S.No.71/2A ie., excluding the property purchased by the petitioner. Further, the Division Bench of this Court has also recorded in its order that the appellant is not concerned with any other dispute involved in these proceedings.

10. The orders of this Court clearly indicate that the property purchased by the appellant in the year 2007, which had originally been conveyed in favour of the appellant’s vendor in the year 1996, was erroneously sold in a public auction by the liquidator in the company proceedings. The error was subsequently rectified by excluding the said property from the sale, pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.04.2025 in W.M.P. Nos. 9381 and 9386 of 2022. In the meanwhile, it appears that a proceeding under PMLA has been initiated against the so called auction purchaser viz., M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited and provisional attachment order was passed on 12.01.2021 by the Deputy Director. Now the said provisional attachment has also been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 22.12.2021.

11. It is relevant to note that, in both the provisional attachment order and the final attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the issue of title was never in question, and the said orders were passed only against the auction purchaser, against whom proceedings under the PMLA had been initiated. The fact remains that it is not the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the appellant is in any manner connected with the allegations relating to the auction purchaser. The petitioner claims right over the subject property as an independent property, having purchased the same in the year 2007 from its vendor, one Muniyammal. The provisional attachment order, as well as the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 22.12.2021, did not adjudicate the rights of the appellant. The said order was passed solely in the context of the offence alleged against the auction purchaser.

12. It is relevant to note that the appellant’s property is in no way connected with the offence, merely because the said property was wrongly shown as belonging to the auction purchaser in the company proceedings. We are of the view that the attachment order passed by the respondents in respect of the appellant’s property viz., an extent of 1 acre comprised in R.S. No. 247/2, now comprised in UDR Survey No. 71/2A1, situated at Vilangudi II Bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, which was originally subject to an exchange in the year 1996, subsequently purchased by the appellant in the year 2007, developed, and thereafter sold to third parties, is not binding on the appellant and therefore, there shall be no impediment for the appellant in dealing with the said property. Though, as a matter of course, an appeal is required to be filed as against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the fact remains that the appellant was not made as a party to the said proceedings. Therefore, the rights of the appellant were neither considered nor adjudicated, and no notice was issued to the appellant. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be stated to have any binding on the appellant insofar as the appellant’s independent rights over the subject property are concerned.

13. Further, even though it is stated that the petitioner may approach the Special Court for raising the attachment and making a claim, it is relevant to note that, as per Rule 2(b) of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016, ‘claimant’ is defined as follows:

               “claimant” means a person who has acted in good faith and has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of Money-laundering despite having taken all reasonable precautions, and is not involved in the offence of money-laundering.”

14. Therefore, only a claimant who has acted in good faith and has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of moneylaundering can be heard before the Special Court. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall within the meaning of ‘claimant’, since he has not suffered any quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of moneylaundering by the auction purchaser. Therefore, directing the petitioner to approach the Special Court to work out his remedy would, in fact, result in further hardship, especially since this Court has already determined the rights of the parties in the two orders referred to above. We are of the view that the writ petitioner need not once again be driven to the Special Court or the adjudicating authorities.

15. In view of the above, and since both the learned Single Bench and the Division Bench of this Court have already held that the appellant’s property is in no way connected with the company proceedings under liquidation, we are of the considered view that the order of attachment is not binding on the appellant. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is also disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.