Telangana High Court
WP/17298/2011 of Bolla Nancharamma Vs Tahsildar, Mudenepalli ,Krishna district on 29 December 2011
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17298 of 2011 Date: December 29, 2011 Between: 1. Bolla Nancharamma (died) per LRs. and 5 others … Petitioners and 1. The Tahsildar, Mudenepalli, Krishna District & 9 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.17298 of 2011
Date: December 29, 2011
Between:
1. Bolla Nancharamma (died) per LRs.
and 5 others … Petitioners
and
1. The Tahsildar,
Mudenepalli, Krishna District &
9 others. … Respondents
* * *
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.17298 of 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionersas well as learned counsel appearing for the contestingrespondents who had filed vacate stay petitions. With the consentof all the counsel the writ petition itself is taken up.
2. By this writ petition the petitioners question the auctionsale conducted by respondents 5 and 6 whereby respondents 7 to9 have become successful auction purchasers. The said auctionheld on 14.12.2010 under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks andFinancial Institutions Act, 1993, is questioned by the petitioners onvarious grounds alleging irregularities in respect of conduct ofsale.
3. The petitioners state that they are not aware of all theseproceedings, however, that part of the petitioners averments are strongly opposed by the respondents and it is contended by therespondents in their counter-affidavits that the petitioners, throughother family members, are fully aware of the auction proposed andthe sale conducted.
4. The matter was seriously contested on both sides and thelearned senior counsel has also placed before the Court variouscircumstances, which according to him vitiate the auction sale. However, it is not in dispute that the recovery proceedings underthe aforesaid Act are taken up by the Recovery Officer appointedby the Debts Recovery Tribunal by virtue of Rules under ScheduleII of Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Rules being self-containedprovided various remedies in case of attachment and sale ofimmovable property. If any person is aggrieved by such sale,Rules 60 and 61 specifically deal with applications to set asidesale of immovable property on the ground of irregularity orillegality and that jurisdiction to consider such applications is alsospecified by the said Rules. The aforesaid rules are akin to thescheme under the Code of Civil Procedure under Order XXI Rules89 and 90. Thus, when such effective alternative remedy isavailable to the petitioners, I am of the view that invocation ofextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India is not called for.
5. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed, however, thepetitioners are granted liberty to move appropriate authority if theyare aggrieved by the auction sale conducted by the RecoveryOfficer and they are at liberty to raise all legal and factual groundswhich they consider necessary. Since this writ petition waspending on the file of this Court since 22.6.2011 and a status quoorder is operating in favour of the petitioners since then, in the interest of justice, the said status quo order shall operate for aperiod of two weeks from today. No order as to costs.
6. In view of the disposal of the writ petition itself,W.V.M.P.No.3653 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3362 of 2011 aredismissed as unnecessary.
Date: December 29, 2011.
____________________________VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.
Note:Issue C.C. by 02.01.2012. //B.O.//BSB