THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7640 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.1.23 cents of land in Survey Nos.20/2, 3, 6B & 7B of Koppaka village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, through a sale deed dated 24.03.2007 from one Smt. Kannayamma W/o.Pothuraju @ Kalyanam. It is also stated that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records by the 1st respondent in respect of the land. The petitioner states that in the recent past, he came to know that the 1st respondent issued a certificate of sale in Form-VIII on 03.02.2009 confirming the sale of that very land in favour of the 4th respondent. It is alleged that an auction was conducted on 09.03.2000 for sale of the land and the 4th respondent has emerged as the highest bidder. The petitioner contends that the auction was held even while an interim order passed by this Court on 08.03.2000 in W.P.M.P.No.4753 of 2000 in W.P.No.3612 of 2000 was operating. The petitioner challenges the certificate dated 03.02.2009 confirming the sale in favour of the 4th respondent. Sri M.V.Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client purchased the land not being aware of the attachment or sale of the land under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is also submitted that the sale itself was contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.4753 of 2000 in W.P.No.3612 of 2000. The further contention of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent did not comply with the conditions of sale, particularly the one as regards the deposit of the amount. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue on the other hand submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the sale certificate, inasmuch as he is the purchaser of the property, much after the sale was conducted, that too in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court. The land referred to above came to be sold in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in relation to the episode known as ‘Yeleru Scam’. Directions were issued by this Court for recovery of amounts paid to various beneficiaries. The husband of the vendor of the petitioner was one such beneficiary. When he did not pay the amount, demanded from him, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the property was brought to sale. The 4th respondent has emerged as the highest bidder. Ultimately, the sale was confirmed, through certificate dated 03.02.2009. One of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the sale took place even while an interim order passed by this Court on 08.03.2000 in W.P.M.P.No.4753 of 2000 in W.P.No.3612 of 2000 was operating. Firstly, neither the petitioner nor his vendor is party to that writ petition. It was filed by one Mr.Peela Pothi Naidu, who was an advocate said to have been engaged by the vendor of the petitioner. Secondly, there is nothing in the said interim order to indicate that the land referred to above is the subject matter thereof. At any rate, in case, the sale in favour of the 4th respondent is violative of the interim order passed in W.P.No.3612 of 2000, the concerned parties have to work out their remedies under the Contempt of Courts Act. The second contention is that the vendor of the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, and her share remains in tact. Even for this, the remedy is elsewhere. The property was brought to sale in the year 2000. The petitioner cannot challenge the same at this length of time. One strong ground that militates against the petitioner is that he has chosen to purchase the property in the year 2007, though that property was sold way back in the year 2000. On the face of it, the alleged sale in favour of the petitioner is without any legal consequences and he does not have locus standi to challenge the impugned certificate. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.04.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7640 of 2009 Date: 18.04.2009 JSU