1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2009 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Dr. Anil Gopal Variath i/b. M/s. La Focus for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Jetly with Mrs. H.P.Shah & Mr. P.Khosla for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Raji Subramaniam i/b. K.V.Aiyar & Associates for respondent No.3. Mr. M.M.Vashi i/b. M.P.Vashi for respondent No.7. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent Nos.2, 5 & 6. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE: 16th April, 2009. DATE: 16th April, 2009. DATE: 16th April, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Respondent No.3 was the owner of certain 2 properties. Those properties were mortgaged to the Financial Institutions. These debts have been taken over by petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that there were certain dues under the provisions of FERA. The Respondent No.5, pursuant to a demand received, recovered those dues by selling the properties over which it is submitted, the petitioner No.1 has a first charge. The respondent No.3, it is submitted, is still before the BIFR. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 fraudulently sold the properties without proper notice. The sale has been confirmed on the same day and possession was also handed over on the same. The publication of notice for sale, it is also submitted was not given in the daily newspapers, but in the local newspaper in "Dahanu Times" and another weekly called "Nirdha". It is further submitted that they have no remedy against the said order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 2. The principal contention therefore on behalf of the petitioners is that the entire sale is fraudulent. This would require investigation on facts. Apart from that, the respondent NO.3 has already preferred an appeal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. An appeal against the order of sale of property under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is available 3 under the said Act. 3. Considering the above, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioner to take steps under law, including intervening in the appeal filed by respondent No.3 or filing independent appeal or suit or any other remedy which may be available. 4. In view of the above position, the petition is disposed of. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)