V.Nandakumar v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.02.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P. No.3425 of 2016 and W.M.P. No.2800 of 2016 V. Nandakumar Petitioner Vs.

The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore The Tahsildar Coimbatore South Taluk Office Coimbatore The Authorised Officer State Bank of India No.1112, Raja Plaza Avinashi Road Coimbatore 641 037 Pon Murugan Dhall Mills represented by Partners V. Chandrasekaran No.833, Range Gounder Street Coimbatore 641 001 Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his 1/4th undivided share/interest in the property in Door No.503 to 505, Vaishyal Street, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore Town. For petitioner Mr. M. Selvam

ORDER

(delivered by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his 1/4 undivided share/interest in the property in Door No.503 to 505, Vaishyal

Street, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore Town.

The petitioner's grievance is that the second respondent, viz., the Tahsildar, Coimbatore South Taluk Office, was directed by the first respondent, viz., the District Magistrate and District Collector, Coimbatore, vide order dated 31 December 2015 passed in exercise of power under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to prepare a Panchanama to the scheduled property, as stated in the said order and hand over physical possession of the same to the third respondent, viz., the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent is attempting to take the entire property instead of a portion of the property, which is scheduled in the aforestated order passed by the first respondent.

We are afraid that there is no material to substantiate the aforesaid ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rather, seemingly, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition only based on sheer apprehension. Thus, we are not disposed to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, at this stage. However, we make it clear that the second respondent, while proceeding with the implementation of the first respondent's order, shall confine only to the property scheduled in the order passed by the first respondent and not beyond the scheduled property.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforestated observation. Costs made easy. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CSIV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar cad To The District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore The Tahsildar Coimbatore South Taluk Office, Coimbatore

The Authorised Officer State Bank of India No.1112, Raja Plaza Avinashi Road Coimbatore 641 037 +1 cc to Mr.M.Selvam Advocate sr.6209 +1 cc to Government pleader sr.6523 W.P. No.3425 of 2016 sal(co) aa08/02/2016