SUBHAS CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the action taken by the opposite parties in dispossessing the petitioner from his residential house at village Uttara Sasan, P. O. Kausalyaganga, p. S. Pipili, District Puri. He alleges that he has been dispossessed from his house and that possession was suppressed by the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Puri, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is further alleged that the dispossession of the petitioner was at the instance of opposite party nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the securitization Act. In the writ petition only notice under Section 13 (2) of the securitization Act has been disclosed and the grievance of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 13 (4) of the securitization Act was given by opposite party Nos. 6 and 7. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 that the notice under Section 13 (4)of the Securitization Act has been given to the petitioner. On perusal of the purported notice dated 1-10-2005, this Court does not find that any separate notice under Section 13 (4)of the Securitization Act has been given.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for opposite party nos. 6 and 7 submits that no notice under section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act is required and as such no separate notice was given under Section 13 (4) of the said Act.

(3.) IT is difficult for us to accept the said contention. It is well settled that notice under section 13 (4) is a must before the financial institution takes any of the measures specified in the said sub-section.