IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 726 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/06/2008 in WP NO : 11902 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Varada Sesha Naga Venkata Harish Kumar, S/o Varada Venkata Ramanujarao, R/o 1st Floor, D.No. 7/315, 316, Godugupeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, Petitioner being minor , rep. by his mothe natural guardian Smt. Varada Parvathi. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 State Bank of Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager, Machilipatnam Branch, Krishna District. 4 Mr. Varada Venkata Ramanujarao, R/o D.No. 7/315, Godugupet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5 Mr.P.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, R/o. D.No.11-105, Chammanagiri Peta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 11902 of 2005, dated 26-6-2008, this appeal has been filed. This is the third round of litigation by the family of the petitioner to see that the efforts made by the respondent-Bank for recovery of its dues become futile. Respondent No.4 is the father of the appellant-original petitioner who had borrowed money from respondent No.3-Bank by mortgaging the property in question. When the amount was not paid, appropriate action in accordance with law was taken so as to realize the dues and ultimately the suit property had been sold by holding an auction. The suit property has been purchased by respondent No.5 for Rs.10,65,000/-. The auction purchaser, namely respondent No.5 had deposited the said amount somewhere in 2004. But till today the auction purchaser is unable to take possession of the property purchased by him in the auction. The case put up before this Court by the appellant in the writ petition was that he had a right in the suit property and, therefore, the property could not have been mortgaged by his father-respondent No.4. At the most, the share of respondent No.4-father could have been mortgaged and not the share belonging to the appellant. It is pertinent to note that after the mortgage of the property, an effort was made to initiate some litigation, which was ultimately settled in Lok Adalat, whereby an effort was made to show that the appellant had some right in the property. It is also pertinent to note that the mother of the appellant, who had filed the petition as a guardian, had also made an effort to stall the proceedings, but ultimately she failed. These aspects have been discussed in detail by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we need not reiterate the same. Learned Advocate has submitted that the appellant is also aggrieved by the amount of costs awarded. In our opinion, the amount of costs awarded, on the contrary, is on lower side, for the reason that for the last four years the family of the appellant is in occupation of the premises without paying any amount by way of compensation either to the respondent-Bank or to the auction purchaser-respondent No.5 who has purchased the suit property and has also deposited the entire amount. In our opinion, the amount of costs awarded is quite reasonable. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 18th July, 2008. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR