THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20390 of 2014 Dated : 08.08.2014 Between:
V.Vani, D/o late A.V.Raghava Chary, 37 yrs., Doctor, R/o Kanakadurga colony, Waddepalli (Rural), Waddepalli, Warangal District and others .. Petitioners And The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Dilsukhnagar Branch, D.No.9-75/B, Ground Floor, Saibaba temple road, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20390 of 2014 ORDER :
The brothers of the petitioners obtained loan from Karur Vysya Bank by pledging the property bearing House No.7-5-108/B in plot Nos.17 and 18 part, admeasuring to an extent of 615 square yards in Survey No.239/1/AA situated at Venkateswara Colony, Yenugonda Village, Mahabubnagar District. Since the borrowers defaulted in payment of money, appropriate proceedings were initiated and by conducting auction of the said property, the property was sold by the Karur Vysya Bank and sale certificate was also issued by the bank to the purchaser.
2. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of the properties bearing House Nos.7-5-108/B1, 7-5-108/B2 and 7-5-
108/B3 respectively, total admeasuring 65 square yards, which is adjacent to the property above mentioned in the same survey number. Under the guise of selling of the properties of the brothers of the petitioners on account of default of loan, the respondent bank is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and demanding them for payment of amount on the four malgies constructed by the petitioners. However, no proof of such interference is filed.
3. Admittedly, the properties are physically demarcated and have distinct identification. As seen from the averments in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, even according to the petitioners, they are having separate house numbers and separate extents of land, which is not covered with the land of respondents 4 and 5 herein, who are the borrowers, it is not shown how respondents 1 to 3 were interfering with their property under the guise of loan transaction of respondents 4 and 5. It is only a vague assertion.
4. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, appropriate action was taken by the bank by following due process and after conducting sale of the property, the sale certificate was also issued to the purchaser. The borrowers initially instituted a writ petition before this Court and even though sufficient time was granted to them to repay the amount, they did not repay the same. Hence, the property was sold. The borrowers property was clearly demarcated.
5. Thus, only on apprehension, this writ petition is instituted.
The learned counsel for the petitioners could not substantiate petitioners’ contention that the respondent bank was interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners. If the petitioners have a valid grievance on such interference, they can work out their remedies as available to them under law. Since no case is made out with regard to such interference by the bank, no writ of mandamus can be issued.
5. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date : 08.08.2014 ssp