BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of unsuccessful writ-petitioners and is directed against an order dated 1st May 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6176 of 2012 by which His Lordship dismissed the writ-petition summarily on the ground of existence of alternative remedy.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Letters Patent Appeal may be summed up thus:-

2.1 A mortgage deed was executed between the respondents No. 5 and 6 on the one hand and the respondent No.7 on the other. The said deed was executed for securing the financial assistance given by the respondents No. 5 and 6 to the respondent No.7. According to law, all duties including stamp duty etc. for execution and registration of the mortgage-deed were to be borne by the respondent No.7.

2.2 Subsequently, the mortgage dues of the respondent No. 6 were settled and the respondent No.6 released its mortgage-interest on the property in question. However, so far as the mortgage dues of the respondent No.5 were concerned, the respondent No.7 made default in payment of the dues and thus, the mortgage-interest continued between the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.7.

2.3 Subsequently, the respondent No.5 initiated proceedings against the respondent No.7 for realization under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [the Securitisation Act] and took over the possession of the property in question of the respondent No. 7 and pursuant to auction notification given by the respondent No.5, the petitioners made an offer, and the same being the highest, was accepted by the respondent No.5.

2.4 On 29th December 2006, on payment of the sale price by the petitioner No.1, a Sale Certificate was executed by the respondent No.5 and thus, on execution of such Sale Certificate, the ownership rights of the respondent No.7 vested in the petitioners. The ownership rights of the property in question thus stood transferred to the petitioners free from all encumbrances.

2.5 After the aforesaid auction purchase, while the petitioners were in peaceful possession of the property in question, they were surprised to receive a notice dated 8th December 2009 under section 135.D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 from the respondent No.4 stating that an encumbrance has been registered on the property in question of the petitioner No.1. It was also stated in the notice that the encumbrance is for deficit stamp duty plus penalty on mortgage deed which, as stated earlier, was executed by the respondent No.7 in favour of the respondents No. 5 and 6.

2.6 In the said notice, the respondent No.4 also stated that the encumbrance has been fastened to the property in question in pursuance of direction of the respondent No.3 through an inter-departmental letter dated 23rd October 2009.

2.7 The petitioners demanded a copy of the inter-departmental letter dated 23rd October 2009 by an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and found that the said inter-departmental letter was, in fact, a notice under section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The same as addressed to the respondent No.7 and a copy was marked to the respondent No.4 directing him to fasten an encumbrance by registering an encumbrance on the petitioners' property.

2.8 The petitioners discovered that the proceeding has been initiated under the Bombay Land Revenue Code for recovery of deficit stamp duty plus penalty against the petitioners' property in question and the notice was under section152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which is a notice of demand as contemplated under section 150 of the said Code.

2.9 The petitioners also came to know that while the notice of demand under section 150 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was issued to the respondent No.7, the respondent-authorities had wrongly proceeded against the petitioners' property in question and hence wrongly addressed