THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.23030 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for brevity) seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent – Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, Uppal, Hyderabad, in not assisting the petitioner for evicting the respondents 2 and 3 from the premises bearing Door No. 3-9-61, Sharadanagar Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 24-01-2011 in W.A.No.554 of 2008, as illegal. Heard Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 on behalf of Sri M. Govind Reddy and Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. In view of the order that I propose to pass now, all other details of the case need not be recorded herein, except noticing that a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with W.A.No.554 of 2008, instituted by the 6th respondent herein, has held that issuance of the auction notification proposing to sell the house property of the 6th respondent and the sale conducted in pursuance thereof by the writ petitioner Corporation and further inducting the 5th respondent into possession thereof after receiving the bid amount from him, are all illegal. In view of the said finding the said writ appeal was allowed, as also W.P.No.21607 of 2006. Consequently, the sale of the residential property belonging to the 6th respondent herein, by public auction, has been set at naught. Pursuant to this Judgment, the writ petitioner is under a legal obligation to redeliver possession of the said property to the 6th respondent. Finding that the 6th respondent has not been so delivered the vacant possession, he started taking measures against the petitioner herein for non-compliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.554 of 2008, in their Judgment dated 24-01-2011. Hence, this writ petition has been instituted by the Corporation. However, after receipt of notice, on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 a memorandum has been circulated by the learned counsel Sri M. Govind Reddy. It is noted in the said memo that in case the writ petitioner Corporation proposes to recover possession of the disputed property from the 5th respondent, the Corporation was required to pay in all a sum of Rs.90,85,904/-, the split up thereof is also furnished. Then, I called for the response of the writ petitioner Corporation. I suggested that the 5th respondent deserves to be compensated reasonably for the amounts of money deposited by him towards the sale price of the property in dispute and for getting his investment completely blocked for considerable length of time. I suggested to the Corporation to compensate him by paying interest at 12% on the amount deposited by him though the respondents desired interest to be paid at 18%. Since, the transaction in question not being a commercial transaction, I thought interest at 12% would be most reasonable. Accordingly, the Corporation has calculated the interest at 12% payable on the amount of Rs.27,00,000/- deposited by the 5th respondent towards sale price, from 28-08-2006 up to 31-08-2011. The amount has worked out to Rs.16,23,551/-. This amount shall be paid by the writ petitioner Corporation to the 5th respondent. As per the directions issued by this Court on 26-08-2011, the sale price amount of Rs.27,00,000/- has since been deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. This amount has to be returned to the 5th respondent. For enabling the writ petitioner Corporation to execute necessary sale deed conveying the title in favour of the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent has spent a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of the said transaction. Subject to the 5th respondent returning the original sale deed executed by the writ petitioner Corporation in his favour, which was engrossed on stamp papers, the writ petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- to offset the expenditure incurred by the 5th respondent for getting the sale deed executed in his favour. Thus, after securing the return of this original sale deed, the writ petitioner Corporation is at liberty to seek cancellation of the same and or seek refund of the stamp duty from the State Government. The 5th respondent or anyone on his behalf will have no claim in that regard. Whatever the proceeds that the writ petitioner Corporation realizes from the said transaction will be entirely theirs. Since, the title deeds deposited by the 6th respondent have already been delivered to the 5th respondent at the time of execution of the sale deed by the writ petitioner Corporation, it is only appropriate that the 5th respondent shall redeliver the original documents / title deeds belonging to the 6th respondent, which was delivered by the Corporation at the time of executing the sale deed on 28-08-2006 in his favour. The 5th respondent has also claimed to have paid an amount of Rs.85,000/- to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for securing a new water connection / pipeline to be laid. This is a bona fide claim by the 5th respondent, therefore, subject to the 5th respondent producing the necessary evidence in the form of receipts or record in proof of payment of Rs.85,000/- either to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation or to any other statutory organization, such as, the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Board, the said amount of Rs.85,000/- shall also be reimbursed to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent shall produce the necessary material in this regard within one week from today and immediately thereafter, the writ petitioner Corporation shall reimburse the amount actually spent by the 5th respondent. If the 5th respondent takes a little more longer time, then as and when he produces the necessary material, the said money will be reimbursed to him. Similarly, the 5th respondent appears to have paid property tax in a sum of Rs.4,317/- to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Subject to production of receipts evidencing the said payment made by the 5th respondent, the same will also be reimbursable to the 5th respondent by the Corporation, within one week from the date of receipt of necessary proof of payment by the 5th respondent. Since, the sale amount of Rs.27,00,000/- was already deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by way of a crossed demand draft drawn in the name of the 5th respondent, the Registrar (Judicial) shall immediately hand over the same to Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy or Sri M. Govind Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and obtain an acknowledgment from them to be placed on record of this case. The writ petitioner Corporation will draw a crossed account payee demand draft / pay order in the name of the 5th respondent in a sum of Rs.16,23,551/- towards interest and deliver the same within one week from today either to Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy or Sri M. Govind Reddy and obtain proper acknowledgment from them. That leaves us with the rest of the claims made by the 5th respondent, namely, minor repairs said to have been carried out to make the building more useful / suitable for living, and an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- has been claimed on that score. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that any bona fide purchaser would have spent some amount or the other to secure improvements to any property purchased by him in public auction, so as to make it more convenient for living. Therefore, I direct the writ petitioner Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on this score by way of a crossed account payee demand draft / pay order and deliver it to the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. For the balance amounts claimed by the 5th respondent, it is open to the 5th respondent to invoke such remedy as is available to him by establishing the same with relevant evidence for the damage said to have suffered by him. Leaving liberty in that regard, the writ petition stands disposed of, directing the writ petitioner Corporation to pay up the aforementioned sums of money within one week from today and collect the title deeds simultaneously and thereafter the 5th respondent is directed to deliver the vacant and unencumbered possession of the premises bearing Door No.3-9-61, Sharadanagar Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, on or before 30-09-2011. The 5th respondent shall be accorded a proper acknowledgment of delivery of vacant possession of the property. The 5th respondent, if necessary, can be called upon by the Corporation for executing any cancellation deed and the writ petitioner Corporation shall execute the necessary documentation canceling the earlier sale deed executed by it and all such expenditure in that regard will be borne by the writ petitioner Corporation and not by the 5th respondent. Further, the writ petitioner Corporation shall deliver to the 6th respondent vacant possession of the building with in one week after the same was delivered by the 5th respondent. I appreciate and place on record the sincere efforts put in by the learned counsel for the respective parties for securing a quick and amicable solution to the dispute in question. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 14th September 2011