HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.773 OF 2006 Between: Sri Anjaneyadasa Ramanujakutam . . .Appellant AND M.Seetha Ramanjaneyulu and others . . .Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the appellant : Shri M.Vijay Kumar Counsel for respondents Nos.1&2: Shri Y.V.Ravi Prasad 2nd April, 2007 PER G.S.SINGHVI, CJ Although the case has been listed for consideration of WAMP No.415 of 2007 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for issue of a direction to the appellant to execute sale deed in their favour, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal has been taken up for consideration and the same is being disposed of. The appellant questioned the correctness of order dated 29-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7259 of 2006 whereby he nullified the cancellation of the bid given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the land comprised in Survey Nos.144/1 and 144/4 of Peda Pandraka Village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District. On the last date of hearing, Shri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 conveyed the willingness of his clients to pay 2/3rd of the price of Ac.8-88 cts. of land with interest @12% per annum from 27-02-1999 to date. At the hearing, Shri Y.V. Ravi Prasad gave out that his clients have got prepared the demand drafts for a sum equivalent to 2/3rd of the price of Ac.8-88 cts. of land with interest @ 12% from 27-2-1999. He handed over the demand drafts bearing Nos. 261157, 261159, 261158, 261160, 261162, 261161, 261163 and 171473 dated 13.02.2007 to Shri M.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and then made a request that the appellant may be directed to get the transfer deed registered in favour of his clients. Shri M.Vijay Kumar accepted the demand drafts and gave an acknowledgment to Shri Y.V.Ravi Prasad. He also submitted that the appellant will get the transfer deed registered in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from today. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel, the main appeal is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to the above, WAMP No.415 of 2007 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J April 02, 2007 kvni