High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Khalil Ahmed Khan vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Khalil Ahmed Khan vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 April, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
.1.

IN THE HIGH covar as kggggigxg gs Ekfifibgkfi
nnran T313 Tn:_11'5 afii OF §§&:£,°26§é' a
was HON'B§E MR. JUfi$;§$ L N#RhrA&A SHARK
wnxr 92§:r1oN;fié;1§§?3g2Qo7(GM--a£s)

1 ,5HI_KHALILjAflMED5KHfiNH»
is/0 mooa~aHM£sAxaAng '
  %%%%  As.E%DLAAB0Urkcs_5 
' '?R¢9Rx3Toa*moaEa§ auwaaaazsms
_%sao?;mo;5aa9ex1 -
.R0ZA~KivV*. m_x
a}PAsHRpUa;.GULBARGA
*. - V ; %V'»" ... vzrxrxonsacsy

*% ;§y_sr1"HAasgA D Josax, nnv., 3

 ' K",VfiN9V:g "_

1~ $HE DEPUTY comuxssxouan

*  'AND DISTRICT Mnsxsraars
" GULBARG DISTRICT
GULBARGA -585 101

2 THE THASHILDflR AND TALUK
EXECUTIVE MRGISTRRTE
GULBARGA TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ROEA POLICE 3TATION
GULBARGR



4 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER... ' ;
STATE amax or  '
SUPER MARKET  

 "  ._ .  Ezssaouuzuws

(By Sri R mm ms?  31-3 ' 
sax vaskmmm 2;vr1L,'- am am)  

was we E4iL_=.;':z>"t.aev7:'%:1a-;r1:j:~i<§§ QUASR was owza
:2-r.17.s.2oo7, IAS£UE.D'_B?£_ ma: M." me: oammm. or
amen IS4.:PRODU_CED'P.S_<ANNrrA'AN9 IS AT pass 14 to
16.      ~ 
_t1:v:~z:-273 W41? tp§i.:t1,rIw.icoMxm on FOR paanxmunay
HEARING 3» 'axis; BAY, THE: comm mm was

FQLi;OWI.N'€§:«1.;:;_- .,
A' L' - 3 oauma

'A v. The'  is challenging the cram:

gvpagsedi  first respondent dated 17--6--2007

C},¢f’;me’zr8T”5-‘~51 thévimééacond respondent has been directed

itt%§”»-.ta§§e-igsossession of the schedule property. The

” petiitigiiier submitted thcaugh he had repaid the

lzian amount which he had availed from tha fourth

. i”~_re.apondant bank, action has been initiated

against him under the Securitization Act, on the
basis of a petition filed by the fourth
respondent. The first respondent as per tha
impugned order authorized the Tahsildax and

Taiuka Executive Magistrate of Gulbazga. to take

1

possession of schedule tab

the petitioner, >,_und§rt7. se§;14t 2 §ftt *the
Securitizatian Actktfif either * Ftgg ” District
Magistrate or ‘the fihitfrtfiktrofiriitar. Magistrate
has to take nerésraryirtéfi éfi taking possession
of the pr§pgrty: jrreragrg he rrovision undar the
‘said; ’93émVP0wars to any other
” rfitgifinated officers. ‘though
the._fit$tr$rt M#§iatrate who is also a Deputy

Cbfimisaibfiar in tté case on hand. has the power

;t¢ tare attiofi under $9.14 of the Sscuritization

V”VAbt,tV§e crrhot delegate his powers to the

utffihsrléarg In this ragard reliance is also

A,wp1a5§§Wfon a decision of this court in WP

m”222_1/zoos dated 2-3-2ooe. this court while

V ,:tfaliowing the said writ petition held that the

District Magistrata who is the competent
authority to take possession of tha property can
not delegate the powers to the Tahsildar.

2. Tha learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the fourth respondent submitted that in all

1

.4.

the cases the District fig1§£:§tg’wh$ is élafi tfia

Deputy Cammisaione:;_ cafin§tx také .§§§se$Q1a@* of
the property, in per§fi§Hand”th§ra§o£§#fi§ is zfight
in de1egat1fl§.% tha”‘ §¢§6r§ t6″‘ fine secand
rasP0ndant-Tah§iiéhr}»i?”xxé.

3. jKaarQ fihé Li§a;néd« ¢oansel for the

V ____ _v¢,r’%§g_,§giy”.§y¢$t1on that arisas for
¢pna1a§&at1§n, 1§f this petition is whether thc

D1étfict”-fi$§;§t§é£e under Sac.14 of the

;$e¢uritiz§tion Act can dalagate powars to tha

“”aTéfia£ldar t5 fake possession of the praperty.

‘ , S}aSac.14 of the Securitizatian Act prnvldas

‘A Vthat if any secured asset is required to be acid

6; cransferred by a secured creditor, on rmquest

; fibe1ng made by the sacured.creditcr in writing to

take possession of assets and doeuments thereof.
the Chief Httxopolitan Magistrate or the Diatriat
Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the secured
asset is situated, shall take possession and

forward the same to the secured creditar. There

‘\

.5.

is no mention with regard to delegeteoe éf power

under sec. 14 of the Aotaw-IhieMfiositiccti$,oedeW_

clear by a decision Woff”thiee”oout§te

No.2221/20G6 dated 2§3fi290e>ehe:e§o ;n this coort
has passed the £ollowtfiqoo:oer}”ct’. V

*7. Vcohsequeetlyg, the petition stands
allowed in 9p&ttf:.meiote$ning the order
passed by tag Seeded Eeeoondent. That part
Qf;t§eio®deL:fihefei§ttBe second respondent
{easy eothotieec;’the7 Tehsildar, Gulberqe ‘to

. —- ~~teketccaaees£on”of*the assets together with
V ._1teVdocumente_frcm the respondents and hand
tu over, the -gag to the secured creditor
tinterimtotdet i.e, Senior Branch Manager UGO
BafiK,eV Super Market, Gulberga with the

V Veeeistance of the Police and submit
“; Kco¢p;iance within 15 days” is set aside.

‘.$L Under the circumstances, this writ

V”‘nj cetition is allowed.

Liberty is reserved to the first respondent
to proceed in accordance with law in the light of
the observations made in this writ petition and

in we No.2221/2006. .\

in; we

-5-

Liberty is also resarved .t§£3

respondent to approach _tAb.-e._ ‘:§’§s9.§~’of;§§at:tAVV

accordance with law.