IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.30641/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. FOUZIA FAROOKH W/O SRI B.M. FAROOKH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.901 K2 APARTMENT FALNIR MANGALORE-575001 (BY SRI VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ... PETITIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SPECIAL CELL) M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE-575001 3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004 SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE MANGALORE-575001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H T NARENDRA PRASAD, AGA.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS ITEM NO.3, 4 AND 5 OF ANNEX-I PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notification dated 22.06.2017 as at Annexure-A to the petition.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the properties which is referred to in Sl.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the impugned notification situate in Talapadi village. The impugned notification has included the properties on the ground that the properties are also to be traced to the transaction relating to M/s Agri Gold Farma Estate India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner contends that the property has nothing to do with the affairs of the said M/s. Agri Gold Farma Estate India Pvt. Ltd and therefore the notification is not justified.
3. Though several contentions are urged in the writ petition, a perusal of the statement of objection filed on behalf of the respondents would indicate that in respect of the allegations as against M/s. AgriGold Farma Estate India Pvt. Ltd, the proceedings has been initiated before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in CR No.6/2015.
4. If that be the position, the subject matter as notified in the impugned notification would now stand seized by the competent Court and if the petitioner therefore is to contend that the property is to be excluded from the said proceedings, the petitioner would have the liberty of filing appropriate application in the said proceedings and rely upon the documents to put forth the claim therein.
Therefore, reserving such liberty to the petitioner and keeping open all contentions to be urged in the said proceedings, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms