THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 27887 of 2009 07-04-2010 BETWEEN; S.Pulla Reddy and others ...Petitioners vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, HUDCO Bhavan, New Delhi and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.27887 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The challenge in this writ petition by the fifty (50) petitioners is to th recovery certificate dated 13-06-2003 issued by the 3rd respondent i O.A.No.617 of 2001 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderaba (the Tribunal) and the consequent order of attachment of immovabl property by the 3rd respondent in R.P.No.295 of 2003 in O.A.No.617 o 2001. The challenge is confined to the enumeration in the recover certificate and the order of attachment in respect of the plots of th petitioners. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents t execute redemption of the mortgage deed of the scheduled property insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioners and others formed the 4th respondent-NGO Cooperative House Building Society Limited. The said responden approached the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limite (HUDCO) for obtaining a housing loan for its members. The 1s respondent-HUDCO advanced a loan of Rs.88.60 lakhs for construction o 256 houses including 205 in the MIG-II category and 51 in the HIG category, in a total extent of land admeasuring 18.221 hectares. Of th loan amount, Rs.63.06 lakhs was advanced for construction of MIG house and Rs.25.54 lakhs for HIG houses. The 4th respondent-societ mortgaged the land and the buildings to be built thereon towards securit for the loan availed of by executing a deed of mortgage and agreed t continue the mortgage till full repayment of the loan and interest and an other monies that may be due from the 4th respondent to the 1s respondent. The 4th respondent defaulted in the payment of the instalments of th loan to the 1st respondent and fell in arrears to a tune of Rs.48,98,346. Th 1st respondent filed O.A.No.617 of 2001 before the Tribunal, which by a order dated 13-06-2003 issued a certificate for recovery of Rs.68,00,674 including interest up to 13-06-2003 and for costs. Consequently, the 3r respondent attached the mortgaged property by an order dated 23-04-200 and issued a notice also dated 23-04-2004 for sale of the mortgage property. Apprehending dispossession and sale of the property the property (plots) as well, the petitioners are before this Court. They asse to have paid in full the amounts due to the 4th respondent-society i respect of the plots allotted to each of them and to have obtained a “N Dues Certificate” from the 4th respondent in confirmation of suc payments. Some of the petitioners are not original alloties but ar purchasers from the original alloties and assert that the original alloties o themselves, as the case may be, have repaid the entire amounts due to th 4th respondent-society in respect of the plots. The petitioners contend that the terms of the agreement between th 4th respondent and the 1st respondent enable the 1st responden to proceed against the entire mortgaged property or parts of it as ar adequate to enable repayment or liquidation of the amounts due by the 4t respondent to the 1st respondent. In the circumstances the petitioner contend, passing order of attachment and bringing to sale the entir mortgaged property including the plots allotted and registered in faovur o the petitioners despite payment by them of the full amounts due to the 4t respondent-society, is an arbitrary and unsustainable conduct. Some o the members however have defaulted in the payments to the 4t respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, havin obtained instructions from these respondents and a letter dated 29-03 2010 (which is placed on record for the perusal of this Court), states tha the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are willing to proceed in the first instanc against a part of the mortgaged property (i.e. plots) belonging to defaultin members of the 4th respondent-society and if the proceeds of sale of suc part of the property is insufficient to clear all the dues then alone woul respondent Nos.1 and 2 proceed against the other part of the mortgage property, belonging to the non-defaulting members. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, th learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has no objection to th respondent Nos.1 and 2 pursuing such course of action. The letter date 29-03-2010 addressed by the 2nd respondent to its counsel containing th above proposals is made part of the record. In the circumstances and in view of the developments above, th substantive grievance of the petitioners does not subsist. Recording the proposal of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as contained i the letter dated 29.03.2010 of the 2nd respondent addressed to its counse the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission in terms of th proposal aforestated as agreed to on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and and the petitioners. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 7th APRIL 2010. TSNR