THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7685 of 2010 April 08, 2010 Between: Sree Venkateswara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director Musunuri Ramakrishna … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, represented by its Senior Branch Manager, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7685 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is a company. They allegedly purchased an extent of Acs.139.00 in R.S.Nos.252/1, 252/2, 253/1 and 253/4 situated at Vedadri Village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal in Krishna District, under registered sale deed dated 23.7.2005 from M/s.Sri Vijaya Krishna Cements Pvt. Ltd. They allege that on 20.3.2010 one Nageswara Rao entered the land in R.S.Nos.253/1 and 253/4 and commenced clearing operations and demolition (of dilapidated walls) with proclainer. Petitioner lodged a complaint with P.S.Chillakallu. In the Police enquiry, T.Venkateswara Reddy @ Venkateswarlu (fourth respondent) submitted sale deed dated 25.9.2008 executed by first respondent, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation. Petitioner alleges that first respondent sold the land admeasuring Acs.46.35 in R.S.No.253/1 and Acs.28.58 in R.S.No.253/4 to M/s.Garuda Cements Ltd. The petitioner contends that the sale by first respondent of petitioner’s land as illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to set aside the sale deed dated 25.9.2008 executed by first respondent in favour of M/s.Garuda Cements Ltd (predecessor of third respondent). The counsel for petitioner does not dispute that proper remedy to seek cancellation of sale deed is a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a declaration. A writ petition is not a proper remedy. Even if the first respondent is a statutory authority when they exercise their rights under the contract, after completion of sale and execution of sale deed in favour of third party, aggrieved person may either file a petition challenging the proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1958 as arbitrary or to file a suit before Civil Court claiming ownership of the property. The writ petition is not a proper remedy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 08, 2010 YS