Alla Madhavi v. The Authorized Officer,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No. 23702 OF 2016 Date: 19.07.2016 Between:

Alla Madhavi, West Godavari District.

..... Petitioner And:

The Authorized Officer, City Union Bank Limited, Administrative Officer, No. 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam - 612001, Tamilnadu, and another.

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kambampati Ramesh Babu For Sri Bobba Hari Prasad Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Sri Ambadipudi Satyanaraya The Court made the following:

ORDER (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of first floor along with 50% of undivided share of land admeasuring 930 square yards out of 1229 square yards along with easmentary right situated in T.S.Nos.1407 to 1414 of Municipal C. Ward, Vakineni Vari Street, Eastern Street, Eluru City, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by sale notice dated 17.05.2016 issued by respondent No.1. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that a person by name Kalagara Siva Rama Krishna Prasad and his wife Kalagara Mrunalini, who are the owners of the ground floor, availed loan from respondent No.2 by depositing registered Will dated 05.01.2016. She has further averred that the respondents have been illegally proceeding against the property belonging to the petitioner based on the purported mortgage executed by the aforementioned two mortgagors. She sought for setting aside the notice for tender-cum-auction sale which has fixed 20.07.2016 as the date of auction.

Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that it appears that considering the fact that very recently an application for recovery of possession under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') was filed, his clients may not have taken physical possession of the property in occupation either from the mortgagor or the petitioner. He has further submitted that as the petitioner was not physically dispossessed, she can avail the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act and that in the event she succeeds in the said appeal, there may not be any necessity of restoration of physical possession to her by the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. Under Section 17 of the Act any person, including borrower, can avail the remedy of appeal if he feels aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer.

One of the measures under Section 13(4) of the Act is sale of the secured asset. Though the petitioner is not the borrower, from the plain language of Section 17 of the Act, it is evident that she falls within the phrase "any person" and therefore, she has a right to file appeal against the proposed sale. However, to enable the petitioner to avail the aforementioned remedy and secure appropriate interim order, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the property claimed and possessed by her, for a period of two months. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

As a sequel, WPMP No.29198 of 2016 stands disposed of as infructuous.

_____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J _____________________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 19.07.2016 Note: Furnish CC by tomorrow B/o va