THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 9722 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Durga Prasad) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not handing over the possession of the subject property to the petitioner, even after receiving total sale consideration in pursuance of the sale certificate dated 25.01.2008, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent bank to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner towards compensation from the date of payment of total sale consideration till the date of handing over of vacant possession of the subject property. The petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property in the public auction conducted in execution of recovery certificate issued in R.P. No. 98 of 2006 in O.A. No. 229 of 2005 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, subsequent to issuance of sale certificate in favour of the petitioner, the subject property was attached in connection with the proceedings in Insolvency Petition No. 8 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, and subsequently, on the application filed by the 2nd respondent bank in I.A. No. 558 of 2008, the learned Judge has directed the official receiver to deliver possession of the property to the auction purchaser, the petitioner herein. In pursuance of the said directions, the official receiver has handed over the possession of the subject property to the petitioner. Since the possession of the subject property was delivered to the petitioner, no cause survives in this writ petition. So far as the claim for damages is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has already moved an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, claiming damages. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Debts Recovery Tribunal may dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for damages, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 29th August 2011 IBL