IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3215 of 2010 Between: M.C. Basavanna Goud … Petitioner And The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3215 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in selling the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.183 Q&R of Velugonda Village, Uruvakonda Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has obtained loan to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- from respondent No.2 in the year 1992 for installation of Pulversing Mill on mortgage of title deed in respect of Ac.1.00 of land situated in the abovementioned survey number. After repaying a part of the loan amount, the petitioner committed default in payment of the balance loan amount. The machinery of the petitioner was brought to sale in the year 2000. Obviously, the sale of the machinery could not satisfy the loan amount. The respondents sold the mortgaged property of Ac.1.00. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the said sale. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that as the respondents have already recovered the outstanding loan amount by sale of machinery, there was no justification for selling the mortgaged property. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Senior Branch Manager of respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia stated that the land and building of the unit, which were mortgaged to respondent No.2, were sought to be sold through advertisement on as many as 22 occasions between 2000 and 2010; that in response to the advertisement issued on 19.11.2009, respondent No.2 received two offers i.e., one from B. Sriramulu, Anantapur and another from U.Ganesh, Anantapur for Rs.1.55 lakhs and Rs.1.56 lakhs respectively on 100% down payment basis, that the highest offer of Sri U. Ganesh, Anantapur, covers 88.13% of the present value of the assets and that after considering the same, the Branch Sale Negotiations Committee decided to finalize the offer of Sri U.Ganesh for Rs.1,56,000/- and accordingly issued sale confirmation letter, dated 27.01.2010, advising him to pay the sale consideration on or before 25.02.2010. It is further averred that the purchaser is yet to pay the sale consideration and in the meantime the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition and secured an order of stay of finalization of the sale. The respondents have given the details of three loan accounts and the outstanding principal and interest amounts against each of these loan accounts. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the total amount of Rs.1,09,00,119/- is due and payable after giving credit to the payment of Rs.2,42,000/- made by the petitioner from 1992 to 1996 and a sum of Rs.1,49,000/- realized on sale of plant and machinery in the year 2000. When Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has disputed the correctness of the outstanding amount claimed by the respondents, this Court has adjourned the case with the direction to the respondents to furnish a copy of the statement of account to the petitioner’s counsel. Accordingly, statement of account was furnished by Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned Standing counsel to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case was further adjourned to enable the petitioner to peruse the correctness of the statement of account and put forth his pleas with respect thereto. Today, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is unable to point out any mistake in the statement of account. In my opinion, when the loan amount is outstanding, the respondents are entitled to recover the same through sale of the mortgaged property and no exception can be taken thereto. In the absence of any legally sustainable objection raised by the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. This order, however, does not preclude the parties from arriving at an out of Court settlement. As a sequel, interim order, dated 23.02.2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.4232 of 2010 is dismissed and WVMP.No.1310 of 2010 is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.12.2011 ES