THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO :25138 of 2011 Dated: 24.10.2011 Between: Myakala Ram Reddy. ..Petitioner And 1. Authorized Officer, UCO Bank and another. ..Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.25138 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing possession notice dated 28.6.2011 as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of a residential plot admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards in Sy.No.86/1/A, at Gopalpur village of Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. When the 2nd respondent was attempting to interfere with his property, he filed a suit in O.S.No.204 of 2010, in which an ad interim injunction was granted on 25.2.2010 restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and subsequently, the said injunction was made absolute. While so, the 1st respondent affixed a notice dated 28.6.2011 at his premises, in which it is stated that the property described is taken possession under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002, for non-payment of the loan amount by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent and explained that the identification of the property is not tallying and the properties of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are in different survey numbers and within different boundaries, but without taking into consideration his explanation, the 1st respondent is proceeding against the property of the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. The core issue in this writ petition is that there is a dispute regarding the identity of the property. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is the main borrower and the 1st respondent-Bank has to proceed against the property of the 2nd respondent in case of his default in repayment of the loan amount, instead the 1st respondent- Bank is proceeding against the property of the petitioner, without proper identification of the property. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that he filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.204 of 2010 before the Civil Court against the 2nd respondent, wherein an ad interim injunction was granted restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the schedule property. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent- Bank that the 2nd respondent has borrowed the money and he failed to repay the same in spite of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 18.11.2010 and hence, the Bank issued possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others[1] contended that the petitioner has effective alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is challenging the possession notice on the ground of improper identification of property. 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. In view of the above circumstances and the judgment referred to supra, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the approach of the petitioner without availing such recourse, by way of this writ petition, is not sustainable under law. In view of the same, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 24.10.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad Note: Issue C.C. in one week B/O nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.25138 of 2011 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 24.10.2011 Nn [1] 2010 (7) Scale 696