THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 24636 of 2010 Dated: 04.8.2011 Between: Kallepally Ramaraju ..Petitioner And 1. M/s. IDBI Bank Limited, having its branch Office Retail Assets Centre, Abids, Hyderabad, rep., by its Authorized Officer and others. ..Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 24636 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.8.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.2819 of 2010 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, directing to take over possession of the petitioners’ property viz., Flat No.5-D in 4th Floor of Sai Krupa Block in Building Complex “Sai Residency” in MCH. No.7-1-621/556 and 557, S.R. Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the property in question from the 2nd respondent under an agreement of sale dated 30.1.2006 and he was put in possession of the same and subsequently, the 2nd respondent failed to execute a registered sale deed in his favour and therefore, he filed O.S.No.135 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for specific performance and the same is pending. While so, on the application viz., Crl.M.P.No.2819 of 2010 filed by the 1st respondent- Bank against the 2nd respondent for taking over possession of the property in question under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short, ‘the Act’), the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad passed the order impugned herein authorizing an Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the properties and hand over the same to the 1st respondent-Bank. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As can be seen from the caveat petition filed by the 1st respondent-Bank, it is clear that the 2nd respondent herein approached the Bank for term loan facility and created security interest on the property at S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad and created equitable mortgage on the same and as the 2nd respondent did not repay the loan instalments, the account became NPA and inspite of issuance of demand notice, the 2nd respondent did not make any payment and therefore, the Bank is taking steps for recovery of the amount by invoking the provisions of the Act. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner does not have any title over the property in question and the 2nd respondent already created mortgage over the property in question. As the 2nd respondent failed to discharge the debt, the Bank initiated the proceedings. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to get the relief. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 4.8.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 24636 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 4.8.2011