THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.1178 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. Nousheen, learned counsel for the
appellant. None appears for the respondents.
2. Appellant before us is M/s. Vijaya Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Hyderabad.
3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant.
4. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking the following relief:
a) To declare proceedings bearing Lr.No.50/A/79, 3148 dated 08.10.2004 issued by the 1st respondent cancelling the allotment of the land admeasuring 12,733.10 sq.yards bearing Plot Nos.B-14, 23, 24, 26 and D-13 situated at Industrial Estate Moula-Ali, 2 Hyderabad, in favour of 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.
b) Consequently direct the 1st respondent corporation to execute the agreement, sale deed in favour of 2nd respondent company in respect of the above land and to hand over the same to the petitioner bank upon payment of any dues payable on account of 2nd respondent company.
5. The writ petition was contested by respondent No.1 by filing counter affidavit.
6. Appellant did not file any reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1.
7. Without entering into the factual aspect, we find that learned Single Judge had noticed that appellant had already obtained two recovery certificates against respondents No.2 and 3 and that execution proceedings were pending before the recovery officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. All the questions raised in the writ petition were found to be already raised before the 3 Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition was held to be misconceived and disposed of accordingly vide the order dated 10.03.2006.
8. On 19.10.2022, we had granted two weeks time to learned counsel for the appellant to obtain instructions from her client as to the outcome of the execution proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thereafter, on 01.02.2023 she submitted that some more time would be required to ascertain whether the dues of the appellant have been cleared by the debtor or not and if the dues have been cleared, there would be no cause to pursue the matter.
9. In the hearing today, learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us notice of demand issued to the certificate debtors in R.P.No.84 of 2004 in O.A.No.530 of 2001 dated 18.03.2013. We are certain much proceedings had taken place thereafter but it appears appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 4
10. In the above circumstances, we feel that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the present proceeding.
11. In any case, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to prolong the present appeal proceedings.
12. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 29.03.2023 vs