THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 3277 of 2010 06-04-2010 BETWEEN; Pinninti Sridhar ...Petitioner vs. The Recovery Officer, DRT, Visakhapatnam and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.3277 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The substantive grievance in this writ petition is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam has not disposed of the claim petition presented by the petitioner in IR.No.112 of 2010 in RP No.88 o 2006 in O.A 47 of 2006 and that the 1st respondent is nevertheles proceeding with sale of the property in lis before the DRT, Visakhapatnam The 1st respondent issued a proclamation for sale of immovabl property of an extent of 400 square yards in T.S.No.1/1, Patta No.2 Maddilapalem Village, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner claims to be th owner of an extent of 500 square yards of vacant land in Sy.No.1/1A, 1/ having purchased the same under three (3) registered sale deeds date 28.06.1991, 14.06.1995 and 27.03.1995 respectively from one Routh Pydapu Naidu, the GPA of the original owners P.Visweswara Rao P.Rajasekhara Rao and Smt.T.Saradalakshmi. The petitioner asserts t be in possession and enjoyment of the property since the purchase. It i further pleaded that the Special Officer and competent authority under th Urban Land Ceilings Act, Visakhapatnam had issued a notice dated 20 01-2006 alleging unlawful occupation of surplus land belonging to th Government by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have paid th specified amount for regularising his unlawful possession of the exces urban property. Eventually, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.135 Revenue (UC.1) Department dated 08-02-2006 regularising th petitioner’s possession of excess land under the Urban Land Ceilin Legislation is also the assertion. An error in G.O.Ms.No.135 is also said t have been corrected by an errata issued in G.O.Ms.No.464 dated 30-03 2009. While so, the 1st respondent's proclamation of sale notice dated 13-01 2010 was affixed to the compound wall of the property and on coming t learn of the proceedings initiated against the property for collection o debts due to the 2nd respondent-Bank before the DRT, Visakhapatnam i O.A.No.47 of 2006, the petitioner approached the DRT and filed a claim petition. The claim petition is said to be pending before the DRT and ha not been disposed of. The learned counsel Smt.V.Dyumani representin the 2nd respondent also states that the claim petition presented by th petitioner has not yet been disposed of by the DRT, Visakhapatnam. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the writ petition i disposed of at the stage of admission requesting the DRT, Visakhapatnam to consider and expeditiously dispose of the petitioner’s claim petition i I.R.No.112 of 2010 in RP No.88 of 2006 in O.A.No.47 of 2006, preferabl within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of thi Order. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression by thi Court on the merits of the petitioner’s claim petition. The learned DR would proceed to dispose of the claim petition of the petitioner i accordance with law without being in any way influenced by an observations herein. Till the claim petition is disposed of by the DRT, Visakhapatnam, th 1st respondent shall not proceed with further steps for sale of the property which is the subject matter of the petitioner’s claim petition before the DRT Visakhapatnam. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 6th APRIL 2010. TSNR