THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 28249 of 2007 O r d e r: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.1-25 cents situated at Momidi village, Chilakur Mandal, Nellore District, having succeeded to the same from his ancestors. The petitioner states that the said land is classified in the revenue records as Grama Nattam, and their family has been in possession without any interruption or interference from any quarter since 1950. That having obtained approval from the Gram Panchayat, he constructed a building (ground + first floor), and the same was assessed and was given Assessment No. 285, which was even confirmed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Momidi, vide Certificate dated 05.12.2007. The petitioner states that respondent No.2 published a notice in Eenadu Telugu daily, Nellore division, on 26.08.2007, stating that the property in item Nos. 1 to 8 were mortgaged by some persons with respondent No.2-bank, who committed default in payment of the loan amount, and that respondent No.1 had passed orders dated 10.08.2007 in I.A. No. 45 of 2007 in A.R.C. No. 13/99-R1, restraining the said persons or their agents, servants and persons claiming through or under them from alienating, selling, transferring, dealing with or disposing of the said properties, during pendency of the A.R.C. The petitioner states that property in item No.8, which is published in the notice belongs to him, and since he has not taken any loan from respondent No.2- Bank, respondent No.1 could not have passed the impugned order. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking to call for the records in I.A. No. 45 of 2007 in A.R.C. No. 13/99-R1, dated 10.08.2007 on the file of respondent No.1, and consequently to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has neither taken any loan from respondent No.2-Bank nor has he stood surety to any person to the loan taken by him from respondent No.2-Bank nor has he mortgaged his property with respondent No.2-Bank in connection with any loan transaction. He submits that since there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2-Bank, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction under Section 71 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 to entertain any dispute brought by respondent No.2-Bank in relation to the property of the petitioner, which is not subject-matter of any loan transaction with respondent No.2-Bank. Respondent No.2-Bank filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 reiterating the counter averments submitted that M/s. Sri Kumaraswamy Aqua Products (P) Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Sri. V. Sundara Rami Reddy, has availed certain credit facilities from respondent No.2-Bank by mortgaging the properties in item Nos. 1 to 8, and when it defaulted in clearing the loan amount, respondent No.2-Bank initiated proceedings in A.R.C. No. 13/99-R1 before respondent No.1, against the guarantors and mortgagors for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,85,12,097/- due as on 31.03.1998 under Section 71 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. As M/s. Kumaraswamy Aqua Products (P) Limited and others were making attempts to sell away the properties mortgaged, respondent No.2-Bank filed application in I.A. No. 45 of 2007 in the A.R.C. and obtained ad interim injunction orders against the petitioner and others restraining them, their agents, their servants and persons claiming through or under them, from alienating, selling, transferring, otherwise dealing with or disposing of the properties in item Nos. 1 to 8, during the pendency of the A.R.C. Respondent No.1 issued Certificate dated 20.12.2007 in favour of respondent No.2 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,59,71,931/- as on 30.09.2007. He admitted that the property in item No. 8 is a house property bearing H. No. 1-1 (wrongly mentioned as 1-1-1 in I.A. No.45 of 2007 due to typographical error as the Ward and House Numbers will be notified in villagers) constructed in an extent of Ac.1-25 cents, but he contended that the same belongs to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in the I.A., and instead of they filing counters in the I.A., they got filed the present writ petition through the petitioner, who has no manner of right, title or interest whatsoever on the said property. This apart, he submits that the petitioner is no other than the brother of Sri. V. Sundara Rami Reddy, the Managing Director of M/s. Sri Kumaraswamy Aqua Products (P) Limited, and contends that the petitioner cannot question the impugned orders dated 10.08.2007 passed by respondent No.1 in the I.A. pending A.R.C., and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Bank. Hence, he contends that the petitioner cannot questio, and as such, he contended that the petitioner at the instance of the petitioner has nothing to do with the loan transactions entered into by some persons with respondent No.2-Bank nor has he mortgaged his properties, he submits that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to bring his property ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: February, 2008. KSR