IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28127 of 2009 Between: Shareefa Bee … Petitioner And Central Bank of India, represented by its authorized officer/Chief Manager. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28127 of 2009 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) Petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property bearing premises No.17-3-858/1 admeasuring 245 sq.yds., which was acquired for widening of the road, claims that one Bandi Ashok Kumar, who was a tenant in one mulgi to the premises, requested her to handover the original title deeds pertaining to the above said house property, for the purpose of getting registration of his firm and believing his version the petitioner handed over the original title deeds of the said property. While so, she received the possessory notice from the respondent-bank under Rule 8-1 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. But, the Petitioner has not borrowed any amount nor mortgaged the said property and hence, she cannot be dispossessed from the said property. It is well settled that the petitioner is always at liberty to file an appeal against the possession notice and can raise all the contentions that she has not borrowed any amount nor mortgaged the said property. Further, since the petitioners’ grand son already filed a private complaint before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad against Bandi Ashok Kumar, who is the tenant and the respondent-bank officials, which is pending for adjudication, it is always open for them to prove about the fraud played by Bandi Ashok Kumar in collusion with the respondent-bank officials. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be the subject matter of enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 23rd December 2009 LMV