IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 12125 of 2007 Between: Suddapalli Venkata Hari Kumar S/o. Venkateswara Rao D.No. 50-24-10, T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authorized Officer, Andhra Bank Branch, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Andhra Bank, Maharanipet, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam , Maharinipet, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from his agricultural land of Ac 0.25 cents covered by survey Number 151/4 of Gudlavanipalem Village pursuant to notice dt.17-3-2007 published on 6-5-2007 in Deccan Chronicle English daily newspaper as illegal, irregular arbitrary without jurisdiction and violative of provisions Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and the rules framed there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to drop any action against the said property and pass such other orders or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RAVINDRA YANAMANDRA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.12125 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from his agricultural land of Ac.0.25 cents covered by Survey No.151/4 of Gudlavanipalem village pursuant to notice dated 17.03.2007 published on 6.5.2007 in Deccan Chronicle English daily newspaper, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property from the guarantor. The said property was mortgaged to the respondent bank by the vendor of the petitioner, as guarantor. The first respondent got issued a legal notice dated 27.04.2006 to the petitioner demanding to repay the amount due and intimating of the mortgage of the property. The petitioner approached the respondent Bank and persuaded to drop proceedings against the said property as he was a bonafide purchaser for consideration and the respondent Bank agreed to receive Rs.20,00,000/- as full and final settlement as against total outstanding of Rs.23,43,752/-. Out of Rs.20,00,000/-, the petitioner and the vendor of the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- each and accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/ on 31.3.2007, but the cheque issued by the vendor of the petitioner for Rs.10,00,000/- was bounced. Then, the first respondent issued a possession notice dated 17.03.2007, which was published in the newspaper on 6.5.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner paid some amounts. Now it appears that the outstanding amount due payable to the respondent bank is Rs.4, 42, 642/- as on 30.06.2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question and that he paid substantial amount to the respondent bank towards loan account and now he is prepared to pay the outstanding due to the respondent bank, within a period of four weeks. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. It is seen that the petitioner has purchased the property, which has been mortgaged to the respondent Bank by his vendor, as a guarantor. After issuance of notices, the petitioner approached the respondent bank and persuaded to drop the proceedings against the said property, as he is a bonafide purchaser. Thereafter, the petitioner paid substantial amounts to the respondent bank and the outstanding amount payable to the respondent bank is Rs.4,42,642/- as on 30.06.2009. It is to be noted that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent bank, and the contract is between the borrowers including guarantor and the respondent bank and that the petitioner is a third party. However, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and since the petitioner has paid substantial amount to the respondent bank and since the outstanding amount payable to the respondent bank is Rs.42,642/-, we deem it appropriate to grant some time to the petitioner to pay the balance amount. 5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to pay the balance amount to the respondent bank and seek return of the original documents of the property, and on such payment and request being made, it is for the respondent bank to consider and take appropriate action. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 06-07-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}