https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273595 Boiler engine, decorticator, factory building and godowns fixed to a factory were treated as immovable property, so attachment under the procedure for movable assets was unlawful. The wrongful attachment could amount to a tort by the Tahsildar, but the State was not vicariously liable because the act arose from statutory revenue-recovery functions within the governmental sphere. A suit framed against the Collector and Tahsildar only in their official capacity was also not maintainable, as official designation alone does not create a suable legal personality. The attachment was recognised as illegal, but no recoverable liability was established against the State or the officials, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:02:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273595 Boiler engine, decorticator, factory building and godowns fixed to a factory were treated as immovable property, so attachment under the procedure for movable assets was unlawful. The wrongful attachment could amount to a tort by the Tahsildar, but the State was not vicariously liable because the act arose from statutory revenue-recovery functions within the governmental sphere. A suit framed against the Collector and Tahsildar only in their official capacity was also not maintainable, as official designation alone does not create a suable legal personality. The attachment was recognised as illegal, but no recoverable liability was established against the State or the officials, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273595