Y i V. K IK THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ? HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12942 OF 2025 Between: Jayamangala Veeraju, S/o Nalla JVIaharaju, aged about 52 Years. R/o Old D.No. 4-113, New 3-35, Dayyampadu Village, Near Anjaneya Temple, Mandavalli Mandal, Eluru District, (Old Krishna District). 2. Jayamangala Lakshmi, W/o Veeraju, aged about 48 Years. R/o Old D.No. 4-113, New 3-35, Dayyampadu Village, Near Anjaneya Temple, Mandavalli Mandal, Eluru.Distriet,,(Old Krishna District). 1. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The Union of India, Rep by its,Secretary, Department of financial services Ministry of Finance Jeevan Deep Building Sanad Marg New Delhi-110001 2. The Debt Recovery Tribunal-, Rep by its Registrar Chitralaya Road Near Leelamahal Road Daba Gardens Jagadamba Junction , Visakhapatnam , Andhra Pradesh. 3. Authum Investment and InfrastFucture Limited, previously known Reliance point, Mumbai-400021, Being represented by its Chief Manager cum Authorized officer, 707 RahejarCentre free Press Journal Road Nariman Point Mumbai-400021. V'. 4. Smt. Perumalla Ruparani, W/o not known Commissioner in Cr MP.No 56'of 2025 Magistrate at Machilipatnani, Krishna District. / appointed as Advocate / on the file of Chief Judicial ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the in the circumstances stated i Constitution of India praying that in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may more particularly Writ of in I.A.No. 114/2025 in S.A.No. be pleased to issue a Writ Mandamus declaring the Impugned orders order or direction 183/2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary , contrary to provisions of Article 14, 21 and 300(A) of Constitution ndia and set aside the above Impugned orders in I.A.No. 114/2025 in S A No 183/2025 on the file of the 2nd law and violation of respondent and further grant the stay of the secured property i.e dwelling house, Dayyampadu Village, Near Anjaneya Temple, (Old Krishna District) by permitting Payable amount within 3 months, 1-83/2025 on the file of the 2nd dispossession of the petitioners from having D.No. 4-113, New 3-35, r Mandavalli Mandal, Eluru District » the petitioners to deposit 20percent oTT’otal while pending the Main S.A.No. respondent, in the interest of justice. jA NO: 1 OF 2n9j> Petition under Section 1i5,l circumstances stated in the affidavit filed High Court may be pleased to dwelling house having D.No. 4-113, New 3-35, Dayyampadu Village njaneya Temple, Mandavalli Mandal, Eluru District, (Old Krishna and stay the Impugned orders in I.A.No. 114/2025 file of the 2nd respondent. CPC praying that in the in support of the writ petition, the stay, of dispossession of petitioners form their , Near District) in S.A.No. 183/2025 on the Counsel for the Petitioner(s)-SRI T W KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1:SRI P PONNA RAO (UNION OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondents Nor2.to 4:— The Court made the following: ORDER ■ / - Bench Sr.No;-16 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010259352025 WRIT PETITION NO: 12942 of 2025 ...Petitioner(s) Jayamangala Veeraju, and Others Vs. ...Respondent(s) The Union Of India and Others ********** Mr.T. V. V. Koteswara Rao Advocate for Petitioners: None Advocate for Respondent; CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 9th May 2025 PC : This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioners. In the first round, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing No.7937 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Bench v/de order, dated 25.03.2025, with a direction to the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in I.A. No.1114 of 2025 in S.A. No.183 of 2025 within the specified period. Upon such directions having been issued, the matter was taken up by the D.R.T. However, it appears from the order, dated 08.04.2025, both the learned counsel for the parties therein expressed their reluctance to argue the case on I.A. No.1114 of 2025. In that view of the matter, the D.R.T. proceeded N 2 HCJ a RC, J W.P. No: 12942 of 2025 to consider the material on record and passed the order impugned, which is challenged before us. Apart from stating that the petitioners were agriculturists and farmers, and that they were prepared to deposit the amount in installments, no further argument has been advanced. We feel that the arguments made have bearing on the challenge to the order impugned before us. The petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. no Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO ^eputt^gistrar SEcl^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, OneCCtoSRITVV 2. OneCCtoSRIP. 3. Three C.D. Copies KOTESWARA RAO Advocate PONNA RAO, Advocate fOPUC] fOPUCJ nm HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12942 of 2025 DISMISING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS