IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1408 of 2009 Between: Smt. Chitti Jyothi W/o. Damodar Babu R/o. Ramarajanagar, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The Tahsildar Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Vijayawada 3 The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Governorpet Branch, Prakasam Road, Vijayawada. 4 The Manager, Punjab Towers, Park Lance, Panchasheela Towers, Park Lane M.G. Road, Secunderabad. 5 The Authorised Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, 770A, Spencers Towers, AQnna Salai Chennai. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to t issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the Respondents in auctioning the patta land vide auction notice dt. 10-12-2008 without issuing any notice to the petitioner as arbitrary illegal, capricious and violative of all cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondent not to proceed against Government Patta land bearing Municipal No. 3-2-35 in R.S.No. 40/1A, situated in Rama Rajya Nagar, Vidyadharapuam, Vijayawada , Krishna District for realization of loan amount granted to M/s. Bhaskara Poly Plasts, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRM.R.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing auction notice, dated 10.12.2008, for auctioning the Government patta land bearing Municipal No.3-2-35 in R.S.No.40/1A, situated in Rama Rajya Nagar, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondents not to proceed against the said land. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 to 5-Bank stated that the subject matter of this writ petition has already been decided by this Court on 03.07.2006 in W.P.No.13941 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.750 of 2006, filed by the mother of the petitioner, wherein it was held as under: “In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not consider it necessary to examine on merits the petitioner’s challenge to the proceedings initiated by the Bank under Part III of the Act and dispose of the main writ petition along with the miscellaneous petition in the following terms: (1) within a period of one month from today, the petitioner shall deposit the balance of Rs.3.50 lakhs, which she was required to deposit in terms of order dated 06.01.2006; (2) within the aforementioned period of one month, the Bank should communicate to the petitioner and balance amount payable, principal as well as interest; (3) within next five months, the petitioner shall pay in equated monthly instalments, the amount which would remain payable after making payment in terms of direction No. (1) above. If the petitioner fails to pay the balance of Rs.3.50 lakhs within one month in terms of direction No.(i) or fails to pay two monthly instalments consecutively in terms of direction No.(iii), the Bank shall become entitled to execute the warrant issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.6402 of 2005. In that event, the petitioner and her son shall not be entitled to institute any proceeding in any civil Court or Debt Recovery Tribunal for stay of the proceedings or any action taken by the Bank. The Bank shall also be entitled to take possession of the property and auction the same for realization of its dues”. 3. Since the conditional order passed by this Court with regard to the same subject matter has attained finality, and the petitioner, without disclosing all these facts, filed this writ petition, we cannot interdict the notice impugned in this writ petition. 4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. In case of default, the respondents 3 to 5 are at liberty to proceed with the property in question. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date:15.07.2009 sj