Possession taken by a Village Assistant without authorization is illegal and violates the SARFAESI Act.

ORDER

1.This Appeal is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 577/2019 in S.A. No. 59/2019 challenging a portion of the order dated 12.04.2019 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Bengaluru.

2. First Respondent filed S.A. No. 59/2019 challenging the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Learned District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada District in MAG (2) CR/358/2018/46846/C4 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act , 2002. In pursuance of this order, the Appellant Bank has taken possession of the property, the secured asset, therefore, 1st Respondent filed I.A. No.577/2019 in S.A. No. 59/2019 for restoration of the property since the possession was taken violating the status quo order passed by Hon’ble High Court. Learned Presiding Officer dealt with both I.A. No. 577/2019 and S.A. No. 59/2019 and passed an order on 12.04.2019. In the said order, Learned Presiding Officer passed order stating that impugned order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Learned District Magistrate, Dakshna Kannada District in MAG (2) CR/358/2018/46846/C4 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act , 2002, is valid and in accordance with law, however, he held that, I.A. No. 577/2019 filed for redelivery was allowed and directed the Appellant Bank to re-deliver the possession of six items of property within 7 days from the date of that order. Now, this Appeal is filed by the Bank challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 577/2019.

3. Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank submitted that there was no challenge to the execution of warrant in Securitisation Application. Section 13 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act gives powers to Tahsildar to delegate the power to Officers. When the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act , 2002, was found in order, allowing the Application for re-delivery on the ground that possession was taken by a person not authorised, it not correct. Possession was taken by following the procedures as per the provision of the SARFAESI Act , 2002. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed in I.A. No. 577/2019.

4. Learned Counsel for 1^st Respondent submitted that 1^st Respondent filed Writ Petition No.55520/2018 and Writ Petition No.56873-891/2018 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. When the matter was listed for hearing on 04.02.2019, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents therein including the Petitioner/Appellant herein, were present, and with the consent of all the parties, Writ Petition was taken up for final hearing and disposed of. On considering the rival submissions, the Hon’ble High Court taking note of the fact, 1st Respondent already approached the Tribunal and filed an Application for stay, directed the 1st Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs before the Tribunal on or before 06.02.2019, and the Tribunal was directed to consider the Stay Application on or before 08.02.2019. Till 08.02.2019, “status quo with regard to possession as it exists today in respect of secured asset was ordered to be maintained.”

5. It is further submitted that despite this order, official of Appellant Bank, in violation of Hon’ble High Court order, took physical possession of the property with help of Police and Goondas. It amounts to contempt of Hon’ble High Court order. The submission of Learned Counsel for Appellant is that the possession was taken even before the High Court passed order, is not correct. That apart, the order of District Magistrate empowers only Tahsildar and Special Tahsildar, Mulki, Mangaluru Taluk, to take possession, but possession was taken by Village Assistant. It is against the law. In the said circumstances, Learned Presiding Officer rightly allowed t