THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 6996 of 2010 12-04-2010 BETWEEN; P.M.Nirmala Kumari wife of Anand Kumar ...Petitioner vs. Repco Home Finance Limited, Vijayawada Branch, rep. by its Authorised Officer and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.6996 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Essentially the notice dated 22-02-2010 issued by the 1s respondent-secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstructio of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (fo short “ 2002 Act”), notifying for sale the specified house property o account of default by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the borrowers, is assailed i this writ petition. The petitioner asserts that on 31-10-1983 the house site patta wa assigned in favour of the petitioner’s grandmother by name Pagol Kanakamma in R.S.No.293/7, Jagaiahpet village and town, in an extent o Ac.0.03 cents. The grandmother constructed a house thereon. On th demise of the grandmother, the property devolved on the petitioner’s fathe by name P.S.Satya Vedam. The father died on 04-04-2002. On the demis of the father, the petitioner, the 4th respondent-a brother, the 3r respondent-the mother and a sister by name Prem Kumari are pleaded t have inherited the property by succession. While so, on 22-03-2010 when the petitioner went to Vijayawada, sh learnt that the property was mortgaged by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 wit the 1st respondent for loan availed by these respondents, who ha apparently defaulted in payment of the instalments. On 14.10.2006, the 1s respondent issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act and on 22 02-2010 issued the impugned public notice for sale by auction of th property. The petitioner impeaches the process initiated by the 1s respondent on two(2) principal grounds, viz., (a) that the security interes was created by the 3rd and 4th respondents who do not have exclusive titl to the property; and (b) that the property being an assigned land is no alienable under the conditions of the grant read with the provisions of th A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977. As against any process initiated under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Ac the petitioner has an effective, alternative remedy by way of an appeal t the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), under Section 17 of the 2002 Ac Whether the secured asset is assigned land; whether respondent Nos. and 4 are the borrowers and whether these respondents had title an authority to mortgage the property and create a transferable interest i favour of the 1st respondent-secured creditor are all essentially an potentially disputed questions of fact, which are more appropriatel adjudicated in appellate proceedings and not in judicial review, unde Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in this wr petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admissio with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate appellate remedy Nothing stated herein shall be construed by the appropriate forum as a expression by this court on the merits of the petitioner’s claims. No orde as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 12th APRIL 2010. TSNR