IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.7557 of 2003 Between: Meduri Venkata Subrahmanya Kutumba Sastry. … Petitioner And: The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, West Godavari District and two others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.Kodanda Rama Murthy. Counsel for the Respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 2-1-2003 of respondent No.1, whereby he directed refund of the deposit made by the petitioner representing 1/3rd of the sale consideration in respect of tender-cum-auction notification. Heard Sri D. Kodanda Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. A vacant site admeasuring 1000 Sq. yards in R.S.No.116 of Vasantavada village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, belonging to respondent No.2- institution, was put to sale through tender-cum-auction. The petitioner participated in the said process and emerged as the highest bidder. He deposited 1/3rd of the sale consideration in terms of the tender conditions. While the process of approval of the auction was pending with respondent No.3, the Gram Panchayat of Vasantavada filed O.S.No.212 of 1983 claiming title over the said property. Evidently, the said suit was disposed of in the year 1992 and the said Gram Panchayat appeared to have filed A.S.No.58 of 1992 in the appellate Court. According to the petitioner, the said appeal also ended in favour of respondent No.2. As the civil litigation was pending all these years, respondent No.3 has not approved the sale proposal. Consequently, the sale proceedings did not get concluded in favour of the petitioner. By proceedings, dated 26-12-2002, respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2 to repay the amount of Rs.1,667/- to the petitioner and fix up a date for conducting tender- cum-auction. Assailing these proceedings, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. On 25-4-2003, this Court, while admitting the Writ Petition, granted stay of sale of the said site. The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for respondents 1 and 3, reported no instructions. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the tender-cum-auction process, which was initiated as far back as the year 1983 did not fructify in view of the pendency of the civil litigation between respondent No.2 and the Gram Panchayat. Obviously, the said litigation has ended after passage of substantial time. It is a global phenomenon that value of the immovable properties has increased multifold. The land in question cannot be treated as an exception in this regard. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the bid amount offered by the petitioner in the year 1983 would be too inadequate to reflect the market value prevailing either in the year 2002 or as of now. Though the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, the auction in favour of the petitioner was not confirmed. The law is well settled that unless the auction is confirmed, the highest bidder will not get any enforceable right over the property. Therefore, it would be unjust to compel respondent No.2 to agree for parting with the land at the rate offered by the petitioner in the year 1983. In view of the uncontemplated events taken place subsequent to the auction, fundamental change in the situation has been brought about. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the prayer claimed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. But, at the same time, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer loss as his money was locked up in deposit since the year 1983. Even in the absence of any contract between the parties, equity requires that the petitioner is compensated reasonably for his money, which is held up with the respondents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to return the sum of Rs.1,667/- to the petitioner with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of deposit, till return of the amount. The amount shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner is entitled to participate in the fresh auction as and when the same is held. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:27-01-2010 MNR