ORDER Vijaya Bank is the petitioner. This writ petition is filed assailing the proceedings, dated 08-1 0-2004, of the first respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to execute agreement/sale deed in favour of the second respondent company in respect of the land, which was earlier allotted by the first respondent to M/s. Asian Steel Industries Limited. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The first respondent allotted land admeasuring 12,733.10 square yards comprised in plot Nos.14, 23, 24, 26 and D-13 situated at Industrial Estate, Moula-Ali in favour of the second respondent for establishment of industry for manufacturing galvanized wires and wire products. The plots were handed over to the second respondent. Subsequently in accordance with the Scheme of Amalgamation, M/s. Asian Steel Industries Limited merged with second respondent and all the assets and liabilities of the transferor company were taken over by second respondent company. The second respondent company entered into a Memoradum of Understanding (MoU) on 14-03-1987 with third respondent for carrying on the manufacture of steel wires, ropes and wire products. As new machinery was required, the second respondent agreed to create hypothecation of the land in favour of any bank or financial institution. The petitioner sanctioned huge amounts as credit facility to third respondent based on such MoU. Accordingly, the second respondent executed necessary loan documents in favour of the petitioner as a security for repayment of the loan facilities availed by the third respondent. The borrowers failed to repay the loan amount. The bank then filed the suit for recovery of amount on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The suit being O.S.No.402 of 1991 and another suit being O.S.No.722 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Judge, Ranga Reddy District, were subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad, under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act). The same being O.A.No.433 of 1999 and O.A.No.530 of 2001 were allowed on 01-12-2003 and 04-03-2004 respectively directing respondents 2 and 3 and other guarantors to pay the amounts claimed in the original applications. In O.A.No.433 of 1999, recovery order was passed allegedly for a sum of Rs.4, 78,62,119.01 ps. The same being O.A.No.433 of 1999 and O.A.No.530 of 2001 were allowed on 01-12-2003 and 04-03-2004 respectively directing respondents 2 and 3 and other guarantors to pay the amounts claimed in the original applications. In O.A.No.433 of 1999, recovery order was passed allegedly for a sum of Rs.4, 78,62,119.01 ps. with interest at the rate of 27% with effect from 30-08-1991 and in O.A.No.530 of 2001, an order was passed for recovery allegedly for a sum of Rs.39,62,474 30 ps. together with interest at the rate of 27% with effect from 31-08-1991. The recovery certificates were also issued and thereafter the recovery officer issued demand notices to respondents 2 and 3 to pay the decreed amounts. They failed to do so. Therefore, the recovery officer attached movable properties of the third respondent company lying in the premises of the second respondent. It is also alleged that the first respondent filed a claim petition in the recovery proceedings claiming a sum of Rs.6,79, 113.88 from the third respondent towards arrears of water charges. The same is under consideration. Though the recovery officer announced public auction of the movable properties, the same was deferred. 3. While the recovery proceedings pursuant to the recovery certificate issued by DRT are pending the first respondent initiated action against the second respondent for cancellation of allotment. After issuing show cause notice, on an allegation that the second respondent kept the industrial lands idle without utilizing the same for industrial purpose for which they were allotted, cancelled allotment made in favour of the second respondent and directed them to handover vacant physical possession. This order is assailed by the petitioner claiming it to be holder of the first charge on the industrial land by reason of the mortgage in its favour created by the second respondent pursuant to MoU between the respondents 2 and 3. 4. The petitioners contention is that the first respondent has recognized the charge/ mortgage over the industrial land created by the second respondent in its favour. According to them, the first respondent cannot cancel the allotment of the industrial land, which remains mortgaged to the petitioner to secure the amounts advanced by it. 4. The petitioners contention is that the first respondent has recognized the charge/ mortgage over the industrial land created by the second respondent in its favour. According to them, the first respondent cannot cancel the allotment of the industrial land, which remains mortgaged to the petitioner to secure the amounts advanced by it. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondents 2 and 3 suffered recovery certificates passed by ORT and if at this stage the prime security i.e., industrial land is excluded by reason of the cancellation of allotment, the petitioner bank will not be in a position to recover the amounts and the same would jeopardize public interest. 5. While admitting the writ petition on 11-11-2004, this Court suspended the impugned cancellation order dated 18-4-2004 issued by the first respondent. To vacate the interim order, WVMP No.3512 of 2004 has been filed along with a counter affidavit. As the pendency of the writ petition would further delay the process of recovery by the petitioner and also causes prejudice to the interest of the first respondent, the matter was heard finally and is being disposed of with the consent of the parties. 6. A summation of the averments in the counter is as follows. The land was allotted by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (APIIC), Hyderabad for the manufacture of galvanized wires and wire products with a specific condition that the land should be used for setting up the industry and the same is subject to conveying the title by execution of a sale deed. The same having not been complied with, the second respondent cannot claim to be the owner of the land nor respondents 2 and 3 can agree to mortgage the property of the first respondent to secure the loan given by the petitioner. The MoU dated 14-3-1997 between respondents 2 and 3 was not brought to the notice of the Court though by letter dated 09-3-1988, first respondent did not object for mortgage of the industrial plots by the second respondent to raise the finances. But the property was mortgaged to secure the loan advanced to third respondent in clear violation of the letter dated 09-3-1998. The petitioner bank sanctioned and disbursed loan to third respondent without notifying the first respondent and, therefore, the mortgage of the industrial plots by the third (sic. But the property was mortgaged to secure the loan advanced to third respondent in clear violation of the letter dated 09-3-1998. The petitioner bank sanctioned and disbursed loan to third respondent without notifying the first respondent and, therefore, the mortgage of the industrial plots by the third (sic. second) respondent is not legal especially when the ownership lies with the first respondent. The first respondent is not made a party to the two original applications before DRT filed by the petitioner, and therefore, the orders of recovery passed by the DRT are not binding on the first respondent and the petitioner is not entitled to bring the plots owned by the first respondent for sale in execution of the recovery certificate issued by DRT. As the second respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and sale agreement, the allotment was cancelled, which is legal and valid. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri E. Ajay Reddy, and learned Standing Counsel for APIIC, Sri K. Janardhana Rao, made submissions with reference to the pleadings and therefore, it is not necessary again to sum up various contentions, referred to above. 8. The petitioner bank has not filed any reply affidavit denying the counter averments made by the first respondent. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Naseem Bhanu V. State of U.P.1, it is now well settled that if the affidavit averments are not denied by filing reply affidavit or rejoinder, the Court can presume that the affidavit averments stand proved. From this, the following conclusions can be inferred. First, the land was allotted by the first respondent to M/s. Asian Steel Industries Limited on lease basis. By reason of a scheme of amalgamation approved by the company Court the second respondent succeeded to the leasehold rights, which were subsequently covered by an agreement of sale between the respondents 1 and 2. Secondly, though the first respondent agreed to the second respondent mortgaging its rights under agreement of sale to the petitioner to secure the loan, the first respondent was not informed about MOU between the respondents 2 and 3 and, therefore, the letter of consent dated 09-3-1988 given by the first respondent for mortgaging its property to petitioner is of no significance. Thirdly, when the petitioner bank filed the suit against respondents 2 and 3 or subsequently sought redressal before the DRT by way of original applications, the first respondent was not made a party. Fourthly, when the land was allotted by the first respondent initially on lease basis and subsequently on outright sale basis to the second respondent, the petitioner is mere third party and it has no jural relationship with the first respondent nor it can claim absolute title and ownership to the industrial plots, which still vests with the first respondent alone. Lastly, even if the mortgage is held to be valid and binding on first respondent, the same cannot be in respect of the absolute title and ownership but it could only be with reference to agreement rights of second respondent, which might give cause of action for enforcement of specific performance of agreement. 9. The above background would show that the petitioner cannot be said to have any locus standi to question the proceedings of the first d respondent canceling the allotment made in favour of the second respondent. If the 5 petitioner has obtained a recovery certificate the from the DRT, it is always open to it to proceed with the recovery proceedings in accordance with law and the same has nothing to do with the right of the first respondent to enforce the conditions of agreement of sale. This Court however hastens to add that as the petitioner allegedly attached the properties of respondents 2 and 3, it is for the recovery officer and DRT to decide the question of sale of the properties subject to the rights of APIIC. This writ petition at the instance of the financing bank challenging the order of cancellation of allotment is misconceived. A reference may be made to a recent judgment delivered by this Court in Central Bank of India, Kakinada v. State of A.P.2. 10. In the above case, the Assistant Commissioner, Government of A. P. initiated proceedings under A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for realizing the arrears of sugarcane dues payable to farmers and arrears of purchase tax to the Government. Notice was issued to conduct public auction to sell away immovable and movable properties of sugar factory. Central Bank, which allegedly advanced loans to sugar mill, assailed the public auction notice before this Court by filing a writ petition. Notice was issued to conduct public auction to sell away immovable and movable properties of sugar factory. Central Bank, which allegedly advanced loans to sugar mill, assailed the public auction notice before this Court by filing a writ petition. This Court referred to various provisions of RDB Act, and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act), and held that a Bank has to avail the remedies provided under RDB Act and Securitisation Act for recovery of loans and a write petition at its instance either for recovery of loan or for preventing recovery of dues by other authorities would not be maintainable. The following passage from the judgment is apposite: A reading of the provisions of ROB Act and Securitisation Act and the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank ( (2000) 4 SCC 406 ) and Mardia Chemicals Limited v. Union of India ( (2004) 4 SCC 311 ) would show that any bank like the petitioner is given ample right not only under the provisions of these two Acts, also under the provisions of various other enactments referred to in Section 37 of the Securitisation Act to proceed against a borrower for realization of a secured debt. In this case, admittedly the petitioner bank has not availed any of the remedies and did not even issue a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitistaion Act. By initiating any action under any of the enactments, it was open to the petitioner bank to obtain appropriate orders for keeping their security intact. For reasons best known to them, the petitioner bank has not availed any of these remedies. Can it be permitted to enforce its right under Article 226 of Constitution of India when it has on its volition has not availed any of the remedies available under ROB Act and other enactments. The answer should be in the negative. The petitioner bank cannot maintain this writ petition. Indeed, it is not denied that the petitioner bank earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No.25959 of 1999 before this Court challenging auction notice dated 25-11-1999 issued by Assistant Cane Commissioner, which was later withdrawn. Then the petitioner bank filed original application being O.A.No.267 of 2000 before DRT. Hyderabad, and obtained a recovery certificate against KSML. 11. Indeed, it is not denied that the petitioner bank earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No.25959 of 1999 before this Court challenging auction notice dated 25-11-1999 issued by Assistant Cane Commissioner, which was later withdrawn. Then the petitioner bank filed original application being O.A.No.267 of 2000 before DRT. Hyderabad, and obtained a recovery certificate against KSML. 11. In this case, the petitioner bank has already obtained two recovery certificates and the execution proceedings are pending before the recovery officer DRT, Hyderabad. All questions have to be raised before the DRT and recovery officer and this writ petition is I misconceived. 12. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs.