THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.24360 of 2009 Date of Order 11-11-2009 Between: Kandhikonda Ramakrishna Bhaskararao ..Petitioner and 1. The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.24360 of 2009 Oral Order: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) 1. Petitioner—third party filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent in L.Dis.C1(M) 825/2008, dated 07- 11-2008 wherein the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to take possession of the property bearing Door No.70-19-A/2, Assessment No.54638, situated at Ward No.2, Block No.70, Journalist Colony, Godarigunta, Kakinada town. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property from Karapu Suribabu under a registered sale deed dated 01-11-2006 and prior to that he entered into possessory agreement of sale with the vendor. He paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards advance and assured to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to discharge the decree amount of one Kailasam Nageshwrrao, who obtained a decree against his vendor, and the same is pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.269 of 1991. The said suit was decreed against his vendor on 29-06-2000. Against which his vendor preferred an appeal in A.S.No.118 of 2000, which was also dismissed on 11-07-2001. On dismissal of appeal the petitioner discharged the debt and original documents in respect of the property are lying with the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. After purchase of the property by discharging the debt under the decree, he laid first floor and second floor with his retirement benefits and leased out the same to tenants. While so, the 1st respondent issued the above proceedings and he is nothing to do with the amount borrowed by his vendor with the bank. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed any loan nor mortgaged the property, but the debts secured are by the third parties. If the property belongs to the petitioner is mortgaged and which is now taken possession, it is always open for him to lay a claim, by way of representation, before the Recovery Officer appointed for the said purpose for release of the property from the attachment. If the said representation has been decided or rejected, petitioner will have a remedy of appeal to the Tribunal constituted under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 where all the disputed questions of fact can be gone into. 4. In view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the disputed questions of fact now canvassed by the petitioner cannot be gone into in a summary manner under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the efficacious alternative remedy available under law. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 11-11-2009 Murthy