IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD Dt.10-08-2010 PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18756 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Sanjay Bidada S/o. Ganga Bishan Bidada …. Petitioner AND The Authorized Officer / Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Hyderabad Main Branch, Hyderabad and others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18756 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in proposing to sell Flat Nos.S1, S2, F3, G4, G2, F2, F4, G3, S4, S3 & F1, built in the complex in Plot No.32 in Survey Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 30, Dhanapur, Bahadurguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to them not to invoke the provisions under the Seuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Securitisation Act’). 2. The case of the petitioner is that originally his vendor Sri P.Y. Kondal Rao, husband of 3rd respondent and father of respondents 4 and 5, purchased the property covered by Plot Nos.32/1 and 32/2 under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.1932 and 1933 of 2004 dated 08-04-2004 and later he became the absolute owner and possessor of the said property; that, during the lifetime of said Kondal Rao, petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with him and paid the entire sale consideration in accordance with the terms of agreement of sale dated 28-08-2004; that despite several requests the said Kondal Rao postponed execution of registered sale deed on one pretext or the other; that, after the death of said Kondal Rao on 24-08-2009, the said property was in the custody of his legal heirs i.e. respondents 3 to 5; that, as they also failed to execute a registered sale deed, despite several requests, he got issued a legal notice dated 08-07-2010; that, as they did not respond to that notice, he filed O.S. No.459 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for specific performance of agreement of the said agreement of sale; and that the said Court granted ad-interim injunction. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the property in question has not been mortgaged to respondent-Bank and that the sale notification shows the property, proposed to be sold, is covered by plot No.32, as such, it cannot proceed to invoke the proceedings under the Securitization Act against the property that was covered under plot Nos.32/1 and 32/2. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the layout, wherein there is the mention of plot Nos.32/1 and 32/2. 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank contended that the land admeasuring 650 square yards in plot Nos.32/1 & 32/2 situated in survey Nos.21, 22, 23 and 30, was mortgaged to Bank of Baroda and with regard to plots on which the flats were constructed, 11 borrowers have availed loan facility for construction of the said flats by pledging the same and that originally it was plot No.32 whereas the extent of land, under document Nos.1932 and 1933 of 2004, is 325 square yards each. He has also drawn our attention to the layout. He further contends that since the Bank of India has already advanced loans by mortgaging the land, the respondents- Bank has advanced these loans towards construction of flats. 6. From the rival contentions, the questions that arise for consideration are (a) whether the flats in question situated on plot No.32 as contended by the respondent-Bank or on Plot Nos.32/1 & 32/2 as contended by the petitioner; (b) whether the flats were mortgaged to the respondent-Bank; (c) whether the borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loan; (d) whether the agreement of sale is valid; (e) whether the petitioner has locus standi to be a party to the litigation between the respondents-Bank and its borrowers; etc. All these are questions of fact and law, which cannot be gone into and decided in a writ petition. From the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner has already filed a Suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the respondent Nos.3 to 5. However, as per Section 17 of the Securitisation Act, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer, he may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 7. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies that are available to him in law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J August 10, 2010. KTL