Disposed

Dr v. K Sukumaran v State Bank of India

DRT10 Aug 2023SA/71/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT disposed of an interim application raising an objection to the respondent's possession proceedings. The applicant argued that the Tahsildar sub-delegated power to a Mamaldar/Talathi, violating precedent prohibiting further delegation. The court held that while delegation to the Mamaldar is not admissible based on cited judgments, the applicant's instant application was disposed of with the

What did the court decide?

Resulted in the direction that the sub-delegation by the Tahsildar to Mamaldar/Talathi is not admissible.

Dr v K Sukumaran versus State Bank of India — Land Acquisition | DRT (2023)

¶1

IA No. 2569 of 2023

¶2

In SA 71 of 2023

¶3

10/08/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *IA No. 2569 of 2023* in *SA No. 71/2023* *Dr V K Sukumaran Vs State Bank of India*	Next date
		Advocate Sunil Kadam appeared for the Applicant. Advocate appeared for the Respondent. IA No. 2569/2023 1. By way of the present IA the Applicant is praying to restrain the Respondent from taking possession of the subject properties. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has raised an objection that in the present
		matter Ld. Additional District
		Magistrate, Thane, vide order dated 25/11/2016 has directed to Ld. Tahsildar, Thane, to take possession of
		the Subject properties, however, Ld.
		Tahsildar further delegated the power to the Mamaldar / Talathi thus there is sub delegation of power in the present matter and therefore, the action of the
		Responded is liable to be quashed.

¶4

¶5

IA No. 2569 of 2023

¶6

In support of his contentions Ld. Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Punjab National Bank v. State of Maharashtra & ors, and also Mrs. Anjali Motiram Waghmare v. HDFC Bank Limited.

¶7

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that as informed the Tahsildar is going to take possession of the Subject Properties therefore, the objection made by the Applicant is not sustainable and thus the present IA may be dismissed.

¶8

Considered the rival contentions and gone through the record.

¶9

Admittedly in the judgement of Punjab National Bank (supra) the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has directed that the delegatee cannot further delegate the authorisation.Thus, in the present matter order of Ld. Tahsildar i.e. delegatee to Mamadar/Talathi for taking possession is not admissible.

¶10

Needless to say that in case the Tahasildar himself is proceeding to take

IA No. 2569 of 2023

In SA 71 of 2023

possession then he is not restricted to take possession.

¶15

With the above said direction the present IA is hereby disposed off.

P.O.

DRT-I

Tjs/-52

Dr v. K Sukumaran v State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr v. K Sukumaran v State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus Urvil

Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank) versus Suman Narasimha Kotwal

Gadkari Builders and Associates versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Rushabh

Indian Overseas Bank versus Hooghly Shipbreakers Limited

Mrs. Payal Gidwani Tiwari versus Piramal Capital