IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 114 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/12/2007 in WP NO : 21049 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Vatala Nageswara Rao, S/o Subba Rao, 2 Vatala Suta Keerthi, W/o Nageswara Rao, (both are r/o Bandarkota Village, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Cooperative Sub-Registrar/ Senior Inspector, KDCC Bank, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Bandarkota PACS No.H.695, Bandarkota, Bandarkota Mandal, Krishna District rep., by its Secretary 3 Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/OSD, KDCC Bank Ltd., Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 4 Sale Officer/Assistant Registrar, KDCC Bank, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5 Vegesni Rama Krishnam Raju, S/o Venkata Rama Raju, Ganapathirajunagar, Suryanarayanapuram, 35th Ward, Bheemavaram, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: MR.G.DHARMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R.Dave, CJ) The appellants have challenged the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 21049 of 2007, dated 4-12-2007. The appellants-original petitioners had borrowed money from the 2nd respondent-Society. As the amount could not be repaid by the appellants-petitioners, the credit society was constrained to sell the land in question by holding an auction. The appellants were indebted to the Society to the tune of Rs.6,32,759/-. The land admeasuring Ac.5-01 belonging to the appellants-petitioners was valued at Rs.1,11,500/- per acre and in the auction, the property fetched Rs.13,65,000/-. The grievance, which the appellants-petitioners had ventilated before the learned single Judge in the aforesaid petition was that the auction was not conducted properly and the appellants-petitioners were not issued necessary notice before holding the auction. After considering the relevant facts and looking to the fact that a notice had already been issued to the appellants- petitioners, but as the appellants-petitioners refused to accept the notice, the said notice was served by affixation and therefore the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the submission made with regard to non-service of notice was not correct. Moreover, it was found that the price at which the property was disposed of was much more than the market value, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, this appeal has been filed. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the auction was not properly held for the reason that no upset price was fixed and that more property than what was necessary was disposed of by holding the auction. He has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ambati Narasayya v. M.Subba Rao[1] We have heard the learned Advocate and have noted the fact that the auction purchaser has been put in possession of the property in question and he has already made payment to the credit of the Society. We have found the fact that notice had been duly served by affixation to the appellants-original petitioners. We have also found that the price fetched at the auction was much more than the price at which the property was valued. It is pertinent to note that according to the Valuer, the value of the property was Rs.1,11,500/- per acre and the land was admeasuring Ac.5-01 and therefore, the property could have been disposed of for Rs.5,58,615/- approximately, instead the property fetched Rs.13,65,000/-. Thus it appears that the auction was held properly as more value was received for the property in question than the market value of the property. In our opinion, the appellants have benefited for the reason that the balance amount would be paid to them by the credit society. The judgment referred to by the learned Advocate would not help him for the reason that in fact the property was worth Rs.5,58,615/- but fortunately more value was fetched at the time of auction. Therefore, it cannot be said that more property was disposed of than what was required. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any irregularity committed in the auction and we do not also find any illegality committed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 27th February, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies [1] AIR 1990 SC 119