Dismissed

Bolla Deepthi v. The Tahsildar, Mudenepalli,Krishna District

Telangana HC12 Mar 2012WP/13868/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging an auction of the petitioner's property for lack of proper publication, holding that effective alternative remedies exist under the Recovery of Debts Act and Income Tax Rules. The court granted liberty to move the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach appropriate authority regarding the auction/sale by the Recovery Officer.

Bolla Deepthi Vs The Tahsildar, Mudenepalli,Krishna… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.13868 of 2011

¶6

Between: Bolla Deepthi

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND The Tahsildar, Mudenepalli, Krishna District and 9 others

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.13868 of 2011

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in conducting a public auction of her property without proper publication and proclamation of sale.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the

¶16

auction was conducted by the respondents on 23.12.2010 under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which has since been finalized. Learned counsel further submits that the possession of property has already been delivered to the successful bidder.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings taken by the respondents with regard to auction of her property. However, the respondents have strongly denied the averments made by the petitioner.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the recovery proceedings under the aforesaid Act are taken up by the Recovery Officer appointed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by virtue of Rules under Schedule II of Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Rules being self-contained provided various remedies in case of attachment and sale of immovable property. If any person is aggrieved by such sale, Rules 60 and 61 specifically deal with applications to set aside sale of immovable property on the ground of irregularity or illegality and that jurisdiction to consider such applications is also specified by the said Rules. The aforesaid rules are akin to the scheme under the Code of Civil Procedure under Order XXI Rules 89 and 90. Thus, when such effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, I am of the view that invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not called for.

¶19

The Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to move appropriate authority if she is aggrieved by the auction/sale conducted by the Recovery Officer and she is at liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds which she consider necessary. According the respondents, the sale has already been finalized and property was delivered to the successful bidder, and hence no further orders can be granted staying any proceedings. No order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16796 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.

¶21

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶22

Dated: 12.03.2012 Dsr

Bolla Deepthi v. The Tahsildar, Mudenepalli,Krishna District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolla Deepthi v. The Tahsildar, Mudenepalli,Krishna District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Sreedhar Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Western Constructions, Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S. Datta Sai Constuctions Visakhapatnam Vs the Govt. of A.P. Fandp Dept. Hyd and 6 Othrs

Valdla Konda Mallaiah Vs Union of India, rep. by its Deputy Secretary

D. Venugopala Raju, Vs The Government of India

B. Prabhakar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh