IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13771 of 2005 Between: Manyam Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Padmanabham, R/o. Akiveedu, Adiveedu Mandal, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Syndicate Bank Ramachandrapuram Branch, East Godavari District, Rep by its Manager .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri.T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri B.Nagi Reddy for Sri A.Krishnam Raju. The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed to set aside notice dated 23-05-2005 issued by respondent No.2, whereby he called upon the petitioner to vacate house bearing No.19-5-10/1 of Ramachandrapuram on or before 30-05-2005. At the hearing, Sri B.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that the impugned notice is traceable to the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and respondent No.2 inadvertently referred to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, which is an obvious mistake. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel, but I am not prepared to accept the same, because under Section 14(1) of the Act, the power to take possession is vested either in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate, who is the District Collector. I do not find any provision in the Act by which this power under Section 14 of the Act vested in the District Magistrate can be delegated to his subordinate officer. Hence, the impugned order of respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and ultra vires his power. The said order is, therefore, quashed and the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.3 from approaching the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate at its option for recovery of possession under Section 14 of the Act. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 24th June, 2008 vrn