1. Cause for grievance in this writ petition was the order dated 05.09.2015 in Crl. M.P No. 560 of 2015 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the SARFAESI Act). A declaration was also sought that the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, the 1st respondent, should not bring to sale the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas situated in Sy. Nos. 595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to the petitioner and that he should not be dispossessed thereof pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2015 in Crl. M.P. No. 560 of 2015.

2. By interim order dated 21.03.2016, this Court directed status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained with regard to the subject property for a period of eight weeks taking note of the petitioners case that he was a third party to the loan transaction, if any, between respondents 3 to 5 and any bank and that he had never offered his property as security for any loan transaction. This Court further directed that in the event the property in question had been put to sale, the sale should not be confirmed but other formalities, including acceptance of 25% of the bid amount, may be undertaken.

3. The interim order dated 21.03.2016 was extended thereafter from time to time and is in operation as on date.

4. The petitioner claims that his family owned Ac.10.15 guntas in Sy. No. 595 and Ac.11.14 guntas in Sy. No. 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village. Out of these extents, an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy. No. 595 and an extent of Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy. No. 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village were stated to have been sold to one Annapurna by his grandfather and other family members. The petitioner further states that, after selling Ac.16.29 guntas in Sy. Nos. 595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village, his branch of the family was left with an extent of Ac.4.19 guntas. Pursuant to the will dated 13.06.2013 executed by his father, the petitioner claimed that he became the owner and possessor of Ac.1.19 guntas in Sy. No. 595 and Ac.2.36 guntas in Sy. No. 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village. His possession was stated to have been recognized by the revenue authorities and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to him in relation to these lands.

5. The petitioner asserts that Annapurna, who had bought Ac.4.02 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village, alienated more than the extent purchased by her, aggregating to Ac.6.27 guntas, and the registered sale deed bearing Document No. 8124 of 2005 was brought into existence, whereunder Annapurna was said to have sold an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas to her own daughter, Uma Devi. The petitioner further asserts that on 26.02.2015, representatives of the 1st respondent company came to his land and put up a board proclaiming that the extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy. Nos. 595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village would be put to auction on 17.03.2016 He claims that it was then that he came to know that his land had been illegally offered as security in relation to a loan given to M/s. Nakshatra Organics Private Limited, the 3rd respondent, and that an order had been passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in relation thereto.

6. The 1st respondent company filed a counter-affidavit stating that the IDBI bank had loaned a sum of Rs. 9,85,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent company in the year 2009 and Uma Devi, a guarantor for the said loan, had offered a secured interest in the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy. Nos. 595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village. As the loan account of the 3rd respondent company was classified as a non-performing asset, the bank issued demand notice dated 04.04.2012 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI A