MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Central Act, 1961 (sic. 51 of 1993)) as ultra vires under the provisions of the Constitution of India and a further declaration, declaring the order of attachment of immovable property (Form no. 16) and notice for settling a sale proclamation (Form No. 17) issued by the second respondent in respect of the property situated in Sy. Nos. 86 /1 and 86 (b) admeasuring Ac. 9. 16 guntas and in Sy. No. 87 admeasuring Ac. 12. 12 guntas of Ghatkesar village, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders.

( 2 ) PETITIONER states that he purchased an extent of Ac. 21. 18 guntas in Sy. No. 86/b and Sy. No. 87 in Ghatkesar village, Ranga Reddy District for a valuable consideration from Smt. Sayeedunnissa Begum alias Sayeeda Begum and her four sons. Petitioner also obtained registered sale deeds in the name of his wife, two children, besides in his name. Petitioner also states that since the dates of purchase i. e. , 21-6-1991, 11-5-1992 and on 12-1-1993 of the said property through separate registered sale deeds, they are in uninterrupted possession of the same by cultivating the said property. According to the petitioner, they are paying necessary land revenue in respect of the schedule property and title pass-books were also issued to them by the M. R. O. , ghatkesar Mandal.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, before purchasing the schedule property,her vendor Smt Sayeedunnissa Begum obtained an encumbrance certificate and certified sale deed copy from the authorities in the year 1989 which showed that there were no encumbrances. Petitioner states that her vendor purchased the said property from one A. V. Jagan Mohan Rao who purchased the same from one K. Ramulu who was a pattadar.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, when he went to his land on 30-10-1998,he found that the second respondent has affixed two notices on the wall of the fencing gate. One notice purports to be in Form No. 16 under Rule 48 of schedule-II of Income Tax Act and another in Form No. 17 under Rule 53 of the same legal provision. As per Form No. 16, he noticed that it was addressed to M/s. Vinayaka Bore Wells represented by A. V. Jagan Mohan Rao, A. Sashi kiran and Smt. Lakshmi Bai and as the said persons failed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,12,196-30 ps. in respect of certificate in O. A. No. DRT/dcp/167/ 98-99, dated 4-6-1998, the said property is being attached. Form No. 17 advises the above persons that the said property is ordered to be sold.

( 5 ) PETITIONER claims that he contacted the 2nd respondent over telephonewho informed that the third respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Principal sub-Judge, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar in O. S. No. 58 of 1988 for recovery of Rs. 10,83,125/- and pursuant to the constitution of the debts Recovery Tribunal, the said suit stood transferred to the said Tribunal and an order was passed in favour of the third respondent for an amount of Rs. 30,12,196. 30ps. pursuantto which the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery tribunal issued a certificate to the second respondent advising to recover the amount from the above persons.

( 6 ) PETITIONER further claims that immediately he along with his son-in-lawapproached the third respondent and furnished all the details of his purchase and produced all the registered sale deeds. However, petitioner complains that the third respondent refused to negotiate with him unless he deposits an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. Thereafter, petitioner also filed a claim petition before the second respondent on 11-11-1998 prayingnottopress for attachment and sale of the property, but the said prayer was rejected by the second respondent. Being left with no alternative, petitioner states that he has filed the present writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article226 of the C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document