HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 22611 OF 2010 Dated 9th September, 2010 Between: Middi Satyanaraya, S/o Late Saraiah, Hindu aged about 65 years, Cultivation, r/o Circathota, Machilipatnam, Krishna District ………Petitioner And Nandamuru Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., rep., by its Secretary, Nandamuru, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District and three others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. . Ramatirtha The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition which is wholly frivolous piece of litigation seeks cancellation of sale deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 on 17-07-2007 after three years of its execution and registration. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents in R.S No. 117/3 situated in Kakarlamudi Village, Pedana Mandal. He has obtained loan from respondent No. 1 – Society in the year 1991 by mortgaging the said land. The petitioner failed to repay part of the loan amount. The mortgaged property was sold in auction on 23-03-2007 in pursuance of the execution certificate issued in favour of respondent No.1 – Society on 15-05-1996. Respondent No.4 emerged as the highest bidder and a sale deed was executed in his favour by respondent No.3 on deposit of the entire auction amount by the former. The said document was also registered on 17-07-2007. More than three years thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the only ground that as his agricultural loan was waived under the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.4809, Planning (XXI)/A/2004, dated 06-04-2004 and the petitioner was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.2,367/- as per the rescheduling of the loan in terms of the said G.O., the sale itself was illegal. In my opinion, the petitioner failed to show any diligence at every stage. As far back as 15-05-1996, execution certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.1 – Society. The petitioner has not questioned the same. Subsequently, when auction was sought to be held in the year 2007, the petitioner has not availed appropriate legal remedy to stop the auction. The same ground which the petitioner has now raised viz., waiver of agricultural loan was very much available to him when the auction of the property was held. But, except stating that the petitioner is not aware of the sale, he has not come out with any justifiable reason in not questioning the proposed auction. Having allowed the auction to be held and the property conveyed to respondent No.4, he has filed the present writ petition at his leisure after a period of more than three years. In my opinion, a person who slept over his rights and failed to show alacrity in protecting his rights is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After the rights in the property were vested in respondent No.4, it is not appropriate to unsettle the settleds right after a lapse of more than three years. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 28828 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 9th September, 2010 ks