THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30104 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not handing over possession of the petitioner in respect of the property purchased by him in auction held on 05.02.2007 or in not returning the petitioner’s money representing the value of the property purchased in auction as illegal and arbitrary. The property which was purchased by the petitioner in auction held by respondent No.2 belongs to a third party. The said property was auctioned for recovery of the loan borrowed by the owner of the property from respondent No.1 society. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited the entire value of the property on 05.02.2007 and 19.02.2007. However, a two pronged litigation was launched by the borrower both before the hierarchal fora under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and also before the civil Court. While the litigation initiated under the Act has reached this Court and writ petitions are stated to be pending, the borrower is stated to have suffered a decree from a competent Court in O.S.No.106 of 2007 and that in execution of the said decree, the decree holder got the sale deed in respect of the same property which was purchased by the petitioner in auction, executed on 18.10.2010. It is specifically stated by the petitioner in the affidavit and not controverted by the respondents that the decree holder, in whose favour the said sale deed was executed, has disposed of the said property in favour of another person by way of a sale deed on the same day on which the sale deed was executed in her favour. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, while inter alia admitting that the petitioner has deposited the entire sale consideration, has however stated that in view of conditional stay granted in Writ Appeal No.887 of 2009 under which the borrower/owner of the property was permitted to deposit 1/3 of the auction amount, no further steps could be taken. In the above admitted set of facts, I am of the opinion that with- holding of the petitioner’s money representing the sale value for nearly 4 years has no justification at all. If the respondents are not in a position to handover possession of the property purchased by the petitioner, they have no option other than returning the money to him. Though the petitioner has sought for the prayer regarding handing over of possession, Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing has stated that in view of the execution of sale deed by the competent civil Court in respect of the same property to a third party who in turn has sold the same to another person, handing over of possession of the property by the respondents to his client is next to impossible. Therefore, he has emphasized on the second part of the prayer, namely, to refund the sale amount deposited by his client. I find justification in this plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner because there is no likelihood of the property being delivered to the petitioner in near future as the whole dispute is entangled before two different fora and the property was stated to have already been conveyed in favour of third parties in pursuance of a decree. In the light of the above facts, a Mandamus shall issue to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to refund the sale amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of public auction held on 05.02.2007 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the sale amount, the petitioner shall forego his claim over the property. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38342 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th January, 2011 VJL/GHN