HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14396 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of Plot of an extent of 678 square yards of land in R.S. No.293 of Avanigadda Revenue Village, Krishna District. Her father is the Managing Director of M/s. Invent Agro Products Private Limited, the 2nd respondent herein. He raised a loan of Rs.1,05,00,000/- from the 1st respondent. The property mentioned above, together with other items, was offered as security. Since the father of the petitioner committed default in payment of the loan, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under the Seuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Securitisation Act’). An auction notice, dated 25-05-2010, was issued proposing to sell the property. The petitioner challenges the same on the ground that she was not issued any notice, contemplated under Rule 8 (6) of the Rules framed under the Securitisation Act. The other contention of the petitioner is that the property is under-valued and that various payments made by the 2nd respondent are not being taken into account. 2. The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner is the owner of the property and the petitioner has no right in it. The allegation as to non-issuance of notice under Rule 8 (6) of the Securitisation Act is denied. It is stated that the notice was sent to the guarantors including the petitioner, and that sale notice was published in a prominent Daily News Paper, viz., Deccan Chronicle. The auction was said to be held as proposed, and the property fetched Rs.26,02,000/-. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 4. The petitioner claims ownership in the property. However, it is not denied that the mother of the petitioner was the actual owner of the property and that she offered the same as security for repayment of the loan raised by the father of the petitioner. Though the mother of the petitioner is said to have executed a Will in her favour, the property was burdened with the mortgage. Even if the property accrues to the petitioner under the Will, it would be together with the liability under mortgage. 5. The allegation of the petitioner that she was not issued notice, is specifically denied. Twice notices are said to have been issued to the known address. In addition to that, the sale notification was published in the Deccan Chronicle Daily News Paper. If the petitioner intended to protect her property, she could have taken steps for liquidation of the loan by convincing her father and other stakeholders. As long as the property was mortgaged with the 1st respondent, there is no way that the petitioner can deal with it. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such of the remedies that are open to her in law. In case, any such remedies are availed, none of the observations made herein, shall be treated as expression of final opinion on the controversy. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 28, 2011. KTL