Dismissed

B.Srinivasa Sharma v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Oct 2017WP/26668/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging notices issued by the District Collector and State Bank of Hyderabad regarding possession of a property. The petitioner's contentions were rejected as notices were already acted upon and the property demolished.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

B.Srinivasa Sharma Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12/10/2017

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.26668 of 2017
B. Srinivasa Sharma ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector
Kancheepuram.
2. The Authorised Officer
State Bank of Hyderabad
Stressed Assets Management Branch
(Head Office)
Thiruvanmiyur Branch
Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police
Tambaram Police Station
Tambaram
Chennai 600 045.
4. D.Somasundaram
5. T.Saravanan
6. T.Kathiresan ... Respondents

¶6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first and second respondents in respect of (1) the summons of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No.18782/2015/M3 dated 6/1/2016 and (2) show cause notice of the second respondent dated 2/2/2017 and quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the articles and valuables of the petitioner which were sold by them and also direct them to pay compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the livelihood of the petitioner and his servants.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnasamy For respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)

¶11

Petitioner claims that he is a tenant under Mr.D.Somasundaram, borrower, who has defaulted in payment of loan, to State Bank of Hyderabad, Chennai.

¶12

Material on record discloses that in order to take possession of the property at S.Nos.313-314, Door No.139, T.S.No.60, Block No.9, Ward – C, Muthruranga Mudali Street, West Tambaram, Chennai 45, Kancheepuram District, Bank has filed an application, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram, for assistance.

¶13

Responding to the request of the Bank, the District Magistrate and District Collector, has issued a notice, dated 6/1/2016 to Mr.Srinivasa Sharma, petitioner herein, and Mr.Prabakar, having a driving school, in the subject property.

¶14

Notice, dated 6/1/2016, reads as hereunder:-

¶15

“fh";;rpg[uk; khtl;lk; jhk;guk; tl;lk; kw;Wk; efuk; vz;/139. Kj;Ju';f Kjyp bjU. nkw;F jhk;guk; g[y vz;fs;/313. 314?y; vd;w Kfthpapy; cs;s brhj;J bjhlh;ghf jp-s;/ State Bank of Hyderabad Stressed Assets Management Branch, Hyderabad - 500001 vd;w epWtdj;jpdh; SARFAAESI Act 2002-d; fPH; eltof;if vLf;f nfhhpaJ bjhlh;ghf 04/02/2016 md;W khiy 04/45 kzpf;F fh";;rpg[uk; khtl;l Ml;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; bjhlh;g[ila midj;J mry; Mtz';fSld; neuo tprhuizf;F M$uhfkhW bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”

¶16

Regarding to the above said enquiry notice, dated 6/1/2016, petitioner has sent his reply on 26/2/2016 and 22/3/2017. Thereafter, the Authorised officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Regional Office, sent a letter, dated 2/2/2017 to the writ petitioner, stating that the District Collector has passed an order, on 2/12/2016 and that therefore, the petitioner should make arrangements, for removal of the articles from the premises, on or before 9/2/2017. The writ petitioner is stated to have sent a reply, dated 22/6/2017, for which, there is no acknowledgment.

¶17

According to the petitioner, on 21/7/2017, one Mr.T.Saravanan and Mr.T.Kathiresan, respondents 5 and 6 herein, trespassed into the hotel, removed all the furnitures and articles, caused damages and therefore, the petitioner has lodged a complaint, dated 21/7/2017, with the Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station and requested to take action against them.

¶18

On the above facts, the petitioner has sought for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the notice, dated

¶19

6/1/2016, issued by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, and the further, notice, dated 2/2/2017, issued by the Authorised Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad/first respondent, to remove the articles from the premises.

¶20

On instructions from the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate, submitted that pursuant to the enquiry notice, dated 6/1/2016, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, has considered the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram and other connected records and vide order, dated 2/12/2016, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, to complete the process of taking possession of the property and to handover the same, to the secured creditors, within 15 days, from the date of the said order.

¶21

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, has also directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tambaram, to render necessary assistance, for Police protection, to the Revenue Divisional officer, at the time of taking possession of the subject property and to handover the same, to the authorised officer/Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Chennai.

¶22

Added further, Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate, submitted that fourth and fifth respondents are the auction purchasers. He further submitted that the complaint, dated 21/7/2017, has been assigned C.S.R.No.484 of 2017 and that the writ petitioner has also filed Crl.O.P.No.14800 of 2017, on the file of this Court, for a direction, to register the complaint. Learned Government Advocate, further submitted that the said Criminal Original Petition is still pending.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

Though during the course of arguments, Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not aware of the order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District. From the letter, dated 2/2/2017, addresssed to the writ petitioner, it could be deduced that Bank has informed that the petitioner in R.C.No.M3.18782/2016, dated 2/2/2016, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, has already passed an order and to ensure removal of articles, from the premises, Bank has requested the petitioner to do so.

¶25

In the light of the contents of the letter, dated 2/2/2017, extracted supra, contention of the petitioner that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he was not aware of any order passed by the District

¶26

Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, cannot be countenanced.

¶27

Challenge to the enquiry notice, dated 6/1/2016, issued to the petitioner, does not survive, as the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, has already passed an order, on 2/12/2017. Challenge to the notice, dated 2/2/2017, directing the petitioner to remove the articles also, does not survive, for the reason that even as per the version of the petitioner, hotel itself has been demolished.

¶28

The only aspect which remains to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the articles and valuables, said to have been removed and whether he is entitled to a further compensation, as claimed in the writ petition. Complaint is yet to be registered and investigated, prayer sought for, in the writ petition, depends upon the final outcome of Crl.O.P.No.14800 of 2017, stated to be pending, on the file of this Court. Both the impugned notice, dated 6/1/2016 and letter of the Bank dated 2/2/2017. have already been acted upon, and hence nothing survives for adjudication.

¶29

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// mvs Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Kancheepuram.

¶30

The Authorised Officer State Bank of Hyderabad Stressed Assets Management Branch (Head Office) Thiruvanmiyur Branch Chennai.

¶31

The Inspector of Police Tambaram Police Station Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.

¶32

+2cc's to Mr.R.Krishnasamy, Advocate, S.R.No.73197 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.73707 W.P.No.26668 of 2017 NM(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CA(08/11/2017)

B.Srinivasa Sharma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Srinivasa Sharma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Lilly Vs the District Collector

Deputy Director, Directorate Vs Shri Ramesh Pothy

Suriyan Benefit Fund (Madras) Vs M/s.Icici Bank Ltd.

Mr.T.P.Vishnukumar, Vs M/s.Canara Bank

M/s.Sri Sankara Fab, Vs The Regional Manager

Karti P Chidambaram Vs Superintendent of Police