THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO :11373 of 2011 Dated: 27.10.2011 Between: Smt. Mohammed Rafia Begum. ..Petitioner And 1. Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Vijayawada. ..Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.11373 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the proposed auction for sale of vacant house site to the extent of 330 sq. yards covered by plot No.20 forming a larger extent of Ac.4.53 cents situated at Koritipadu village, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Division, as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the property in question from K. Srinivas Reddy and K. Suresh under a registered sale deed dated 4.7.2002 and his vendors’ vendors purchased the same from Gunduboina Anantha Laxmi, who is the legal heir of late Jonnalagadda Seethamma. The said Seethamma is said to have mortgaged the property in question and she failed to repay the same and the respondent filed application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the said Seethamma and another in the year 1995, and initiated claim proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 and issued a demand notice on 8.7.2009 under Section 13(2) of the Act through paper publication proposing to sell the property of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his vendors’ vendor borrowed the loan and failed to discharge the same and that initiation of recovery proceedings after 21 years by a notice through paper publication proposing to sell the property of the petitioner and without giving any notice to him is bad in law. It is pertinent to note that on 20.4.2011 this Court granted interim stay in respect of schedule C of the proclamation, dated 21.3.2011. The preliminary objection that was taken by the respondent- Bank in this writ petition is that the petitioner has effective alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the action of the Bank claiming to be the purchaser of the mortgaged property and that the petitioner is raising a title dispute and the same cannot be decided in this writ petition. The grounds raised in this writ petition are purely question of facts, which can only be adjudicated before the appropriate forum, but not before this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum seeking necessary reliefs. But however, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner, we feel it appropriate to continue the stay granted by this Court on 20.4.2011 for a period of six weeks from today. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 27.10.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.11373 of 2011 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 27.10.2011 Nn