Vijaya Bank is the petitioner. This writ petition is filed assailing the proceedings, dated 08-1 0-2004, of the first respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to execute agreement/sale deed in favour of the second respondent company in respect of the land, which was earlier allotted by the first respondent to M/s. Asian Steel Industries Limited.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The first respondent allotted land admeasuring 12,733.10 square yards comprised in plot Nos.14, 23, 24, 26 and D-13 situated at Industrial Estate, Moula-Ali in favour of the second respondent for establishment of industry for manufacturing galvanized wires and wire products. The plots were handed over to the second respondent. Subsequently in accordance with the Scheme of Amalgamation, M/s. Asian Steel Industries Limited merged with second respondent and all the assets and liabilities of the transferor company were taken over by second respondent company. The second respondent company entered into a Memoradum of Understanding (MoU) on 14-03-1987 with third respondent for carrying on the manufacture of steel wires, ropes and wire products. As new machinery was required, the second respondent agreed to create hypothecation of the land in favour of any bank or financial institution. The petitioner sanctioned huge amounts as credit facility to third respondent based on such MoU. Accordingly, the second respondent executed necessary loan documents in favour of the petitioner as a security for repayment of the loan facilities availed by the third respondent. The borrowers failed to repay the loan amount. The bank then filed the suit for recovery of amount on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The suit being O.S.No.402 of 1991 and another suit being O.S.No.722 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Judge, Ranga Reddy District, were subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad, under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act). The same being O.A.No.433 of 1999 and O.A.No.530 of 2001 were allowed on 01-12-2003 and 04-03-2004 respectively directing respondents 2 and 3 and other guarantors to pay the amounts claimed in the original applications. In O.A.No.433 of 1999, recovery order was passed allegedly for a sum of Rs.4, 78,62,119.01 ps. with interest at the rate of 27% with effect from 30-08-1991 and in O.A.No.530 of 2001, an order was passed for recovery allegedly for a sum of Rs.39,62,474 30 ps. together with interest at the rate of 27% with effect from 31-08-1991. The recovery certificates were also issued and thereafter the recovery officer issued demand notices to respondents 2 and 3 to pay the decreed amounts. They failed to do so. Therefore, the recovery officer attached movable properties of the third respondent company lying in the premises of the second respondent. It is also alleged that the first respondent filed a claim petition in the recovery proceedings claiming a sum of Rs.6,79, 113.88 from the third respondent towards arrears of water charges. The same is under consideration. Though the recovery officer announced public auction of the movable properties, the same was deferred.

3. While the recovery proceedings pursuant to the recovery certificate issued by DRT are pending the first respondent initiated action against the second respondent for cancellation of allotment. After issuing show cause notice, on an allegation that the second respondent kept the industrial lands idle without utilizing the same for industrial purpose for which they were allotted, cancelled allotment made in favour of the second respondent and directed them to handover vacant physical possession.

This order is assailed by the petitioner claiming it to be holder of the first charge on the industrial land by reaso