The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad dismissed an application challenging a sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the applicant lacked locus standi as he owned agraild land distinct from the mortgaged property belonging to another respondent involved in the proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE 25TH DAYOF MAY, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.14/2023
Sri S.Ram Reddy, S/o late Mal1a Reddy, aged 62 years, Occ:business, R/o Vinay Nivas, Plot No.275, Road No.25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
... Applicant
Versus
2.Sri G.P. Pulla Reddy
Aged 67 years, Occ: agriculture, R/o Chagapur village, Itikyla Mandal,
Jogulamba-Gadwal District ... Respondents
Counsel for tlrc Applicants Counsel for the 7"t Respondent Respondent No.2
: Si D. Raghauulu : SriR. Rajendra Prasad Exparte
Reserued on o6.05.2026 Pronounced on,.;,-'.:-:af::*25.05.2026 26.05.2026 uptoadedt"t@Wb,ff i-+S,=l ,/d..- '-ffirt *ffi ] ';z5irr,Yzm
Securitization and Reconstruction of ent of Security Interest Act,2OO2 the e Auction Sale Notice dt.2O.12.2O22
issued by the lst Respondent for conducting auction of the schedule property on 24.01 .2023 and to declare the same as null and void.
The Applicant is neither owner nor guarantor but he is a 3ra part5r to the proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent against the schedule property. The Applicant herein is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring 27 guntas in Sy.No.492/A, 49218 situated at Timmaur Revenue Village, Erravali villae, Itilcyala Mandal, Joguamba,Gadwal District.. Originally, Respondent No.2 was the owner of the land and he sold the same to the brother of the Applicant i.e. S.Chenna Reddy vide Regd.Sale deed dt.09.01.2006 and thereafter, S. Chenna Reddy conveyed the said property to the Applicant by way of Gift vide Regd.Gift Settlement Deed No.2O99 l2OO7 dt.15.O6.2O07 and the same was registered in the office of SRO, Allampur and since then, the Applicant is in the peaceful possession of the said property. When the Applicant approached the Government authorities for issuance of Pattadar pass book, they have recorded only 10 7z guntas of land in Sy.No.492/B3l I l4 but not entered the remaining of 16 % guntas in the pattadar pass book. On enquiry, it came to know that the land in Sy.No.492/A is kept in the list ofprohibitedproperties by the District Collector, Gadwal District as the originalpattadar P.PullaReddy has obtained loan from the Respondent No.1 and defaulted in repayment of the loan dues. The l"t Respondent has written a letter to the SRO, Allampur stating that Respondent No.2 availed loan to a tune ofRs.2.60 crores in the name and style of of M/s Sri Venkateswara ServiceStation and Respondent No.2 created mortgage admeasuring Ac. 1.00guntasin Sy.No.492/A and B situated at Itikyala. While things stood thus, the l"t Responde,5;t issued: sale notice dt.2O.12.2O22 for conducting auction of . .,': .- : , :_, the sohedulip 4. . - ,,.' ie 1"t Respondent failed to issue demand notice, ossessibn notico'-and _;..:'' sa-$ ilotice to the Applicant. Thepossession notice . 'r1 i! u.,a $,. ryti.".;;.9 .,otp$rtri"rr.d in two dailynewspapers and the l"t ""porra.rr,.r"l'r"iidA to q*di., correct valuationof the property. Hence *"i$it$x ^9q) \i$ft'r6rer?X#
3.' The lst Respondent fited their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that Respondent No.2 is running a petrol bunk in the name of Sri Venkateswara Service station and mortgaged an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas of land in sy.No.492 and the said land is no more agricultural land. The Applicant's land is totally different land and the Applicant filed the present SA only in order to create litigation. Respondent No.2 mortgaged the 1and available with him and admittedly in a part of the said land, there is a petrol bunk and the said land was converted into non-agricultural land and so, the same will not be available in the new Pattadar pass book issued by the Government. The Applicant is claiming agricultural land and the land of the Respondent No.2 is converted to non-agricultural and therefore the contention of the Applicant that his land is being sold in pursuance of the SARFAESI proceedings initiated against Respondent No.2 vide sale notice dt.2o.12.2022 is totally false and baseless. The Applicant has no right or title over the land which is subject matter in the sale notice dt.20. 1 2.2022 issued by the lst Respondent and he cannot question the service of statutory notices issued under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as he is a 3.d part5r claiming right over an extent of Ac.O.27 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No.492/A, 492/B situated at Timmapur village, Itikyala Mandal. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.
Potnt No.lil:-
4
the proceedings initiated by the lst Respondent against the schedule property. To prove their contentions, the lst Respondent filed relevant documents i.e. Memorandum of deposit of title deed dt.31.1O.2OOg, proceedings of the RDO with regard to the conversion of the land of Respondent No.2 dt. 12.09.2009 and Patta of the Respondent No.2. A perusal of the said doucemnts clearly show that the total extent of land available in Sy.No.492 is Ac.2.01 guntas. Further it is not the case of the Applicant that Sy.No.492 consists of only Ac.2.00 guntas and therefore Respondent No. I cannot proceed with the SARFAESI proceedings in respect to the Ac. 1-00 guntas of land. Accordingly, the land of the Applicant is totally different whereas Respondent No.2 has mortgaged the land available with him and admittedly in a part of the said land, there is a running petrol bunk and the land converted into non-agricultural and so, the same will not be available in the new pattadar passbook issued by the Government. The Applicant is claiming agricultural land whereas the land of the Respondent No.2 is converted into non-agricultural land and so, it is clear that the Applicant liled the present SA only to stall the proceedings initiated by ths 1"t Respondent against the schedule property to recover the legitimate dues of the lst Respondent from the 2"d Respondent. The Applicant has no right or title to the land which is subject matter of the sale notice dt.2O.12.2O22 issued by the l"t Respondent under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.
Point No.(iilt
Potnt No.(tl)t
(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in th.e open court on this the 25th daV of Mag,2026).
fo.oorr""^inuii PRESIDING OTFICER ffinrylrer.n# Dnr.r, Hvr,"*/ABrr
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party claiming ownership over agricultural land can challenge SARFAESI proceedings against a different parcel of land mortgaged by a relative.
Whether the Applicant has locus standi to contest the sale notice issued regarding property shown in the Respondent's records.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri S.Ram Reddy
Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation
Sri G.P. Pulla Reddy
Gummadip_go_pichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
