01Facts
The petitioner purchased lands measuring 7 acres 29 guntas in Sy. No. 61/1 and 5 acres 29 guntas in Sy. No. 61/2 from respondent No. 6, a director of M/s. Seven Hills Souharda Sahakara Co-operative Pvt. Ltd., under a registered sale deed dated 21 September 2015.
p. 6The State had issued a provisional attachment order under Section 3 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (“KPID Act”), dated 7 April 2016, and later published a notification covering the properties on 11 October 2019.
p. 4, 6The competent authority’s application under Section 5(2) of the KPID Act to make the attachment absolute was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10 February 2021.
p. 7The petitioner sought to quash the attachment order and notification insofar as they concerned his lands.
pp. 2–302Issues
i.1. Whether the provisional attachment order and notification could remain in force against the petitioner’s lands, which he had purchased before the attachment, when the Section 5(2) proceeding to confirm the attachment was dismissed for non-prosecution.
pp. 6–7ii.2. Whether the consequential encumbrance entry concerning those lands should be removed.
p. 803Law Applied
Section 3 of the KPID Act empowers the competent authority to issue a provisional attachment order, while Section 5(2) provides for an application to the Special Court to confirm that attachment and make it absolute.
pp. 6–7In this case, the Court treated the failure to obtain confirmation—after the competent authority’s application was dismissed—as material to whether the provisional attachment could continue against the petitioner’s properties.
p. 704Reasoning
The petitioner’s registered purchase preceded the attachment, and the Court found that, when the attachment was made, the lands were no longer held by respondent No. 6 or the co-operative society but were owned by the petitioner.
p. 6Further, the competent authority’s Section 5(2) proceeding seeking confirmation of the provisional attachment had been dismissed for non-prosecution, leaving the attachment unconfirmed.
p. 7On that basis, the Court held that the attachments could not be sustained against the petitioner’s lands and did not decide the petitioner’s other contentions.
p. 705Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the 7 April 2016 order and 20 June 2019 notification insofar as they concerned the petitioner’s lands in Sy. Nos. 61/1 and 61/2, Kannal Village.
p. 8It also set aside the consequential encumbrance entry and directed the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to remove it; no order was made as to costs.
p. 8Original Court PDF
VIJAYAKUMAR MALLIKARJUN DONIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
