JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. Since in both the writ petitions the parties, and the reliefs sought for, are almost similar, both these writ petitions, with the consent of learned Counsel for parties, were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner, who is none else but the daughter of guarantor of the secured properties, regarding which, initially, order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') was passed, had filed a writ petition vide WP No. 38662 of 2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the action of 1st respondent-State Bank of India/secured creditor in obtaining physical possession of petitioner's site with mangalore tiled roof shed existing therein i.e., an extent of 496 square yards existing towards the north western corner of Ac. 0.50 cents with an old tiled house bearing Door No. 16-25-8/1 in TS No. 1965/5/6, Sambamurthy Nagar, near ESI Hospital, Kakinada, East Godavari District. The petitioner has asserted that the respondent-bank had taken possession pursuant to the order, dated 7.8.2018, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 240 of 2018, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. The said order was passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Prior to filing of the instant writ petition by the petitioner, her mother viz., Mandapati Rajeswari, who is 2nd respondent herein, had filed a writ petition Vide No. 33083 of 2018 in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh against the very same order, which was passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in which initially an order of status-quo was passed. However, finally, after finding that the respondent-bank had produced affidavit, which was filed in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by order, dated 1.10.2018, dismissed the said writ petition. It appears that after dismissal of the said writ petition, on 1.10.2018, which was filed by the mother of the petitioner, who is 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner filed the present writ petition i.e., WP No. 38662 of 2018 only on 25.10.2018 claiming as if the 1st respondent-bank was taking possession of her land to the extent of 496 Square yards, which fell to her share as per deed of gift prepared by her mother, 2nd respondent herein. On 26.10.2018, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad while granting time to learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank, had observed as follows:

"...

The only point to be considered if at all, is as to whether the possession notice and the order under Section 14 of the Securitization Act were confined only to the land of the extent of 1924 Square yards and as to whether the possession is sought to be taken on a larger extent than what was mortgaged to the Bank."

3. By subsequent order, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, on 6.12.2018, had further observed as follows:

"Despite the matter undergoing two adjournments after Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent bank, was asked to get instructions, we find that no instructions are forthcoming and Sri Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel, representing Sri KB. Ramanna Dora, learned Standing Counsel, again seeks an adjournment to get instructions.

Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would state that having taken possession of the petitioner's property in addition to the mortgaged property, the first respondent is now in the process of selling the same by way of a public auction and irreparable injustice would be caused to the petitioner if her property is also delivered to the auction purchaser.

In that view of the matter, there shall be a directio