Dismissed

Adapala Ajay Kumar, v. The Bank of India

Telangana HC4 Apr 2013WP/10240/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a property owner against a bank and its officer. The petition, filed under Article 226, sought a declaration restraining the respondents from allegedly breaking a wall to access a mortgaged adjacent property under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the dispute to be a civil matter not falling within the writ court's jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Adapala Ajay Kumar, Vs The Bank of India — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10240 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER: (per Ms. Justice G. Rohini)

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents 1 & 2 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with his private property situated in Sy.No.191/A1-B of Ganapavaram Village, Guntur District under the guise of the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.3 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) is arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6

As could be seen from the material available on record, the 1^st respondent is a Bank and the 2^nd respondent is its authorized officer. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 is the owner of the plot situated on the Southern side of the petitioner’s property and the same is the subject-matter of the proceedings under the Act initiated by the respondents 1 & 2 against the respondent No.3. It is alleged in the writ petition that for implementation of the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, the 2^nd respondent is trying to enter into the petitioner’s premises and break the wall which separates the petitioner’s property from the property of the 3^rd respondent so as to have access to the mortgaged property of the 3^rd respondent. Hence the present writ petition to restrain the respondents 1 & 2 from proceeding with the alleged action of breaking the wall constructed by the petitioner.

¶7

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy involved, we are of the opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioner is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3. As we could see the matter does not involve enforcement of any legal right acquired by the petitioner or statutory obligation on the part of the respondents. Hence the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of

¶8

the Constitution of India.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out appropriate common law remedy as available under law before the proper forum. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶10

______________ G. ROHINI,J

¶11

________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,J

¶12

Date: 04.04.2013 Gk/gbs.

¶13

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶14

AND

¶15

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR