THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.22781 of 2007 Date: 29.07.2010 Between: Marri Venkat Ramana … Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep.by its Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.22781 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner assails the action of the Executive Officer of Sri Eswara Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, second respondent, in not considering his representations dated 05.02.2005 and 24.10.2005 and seeks a consequential direction to the second respondent to register in his favour the land admeasuring Ac.1.90 cents situated in Survey Nos.763/2 and 766/2, Kallur, belonging to the Temple by accepting the amounts as specified in the said representations. The petitioner participated in the auction sale of the Temple’s property conducted on 18.09.1996 and emerged as the highest bidder in respect of the subject land admeasuring Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.Nos.763/2 and 766/2 of Kallur Village. As per the terms of the auction, he had deposited Rs.50,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) in the name of the second respondent and was required to pay 1/3rd of the sale consideration immediately and pay the balance of 2/3rd sale consideration within 15 days thereafter. The petitioner claims to have paid a sum of Rs.5,17,000/- by 18.09.1996, including the EMD amount, and undertook to pay the remaining amount within 15 days as required. However, on 23.09.2006 the petitioner claims to have received a legal notice from one Smt. T. Obulama, the third respondent herein, asserting her claim in respect of the subject property. Thereupon the petitioner contacted the second respondent about the claim of the third respondent and he assured him that the said problem would be sorted out, duly directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount. There appears to have been correspondence and exchange of legal notices between the petitioner and the second respondent with regard to the payment of the balance consideration. The petitioner does not deny the fact that he was informed by the second respondent that the suit filed by the third respondent against the Temple had been dismissed on 27.10.1999. By way of representations dated 05.02.2005 and 24.10.2005 the petitioner sought payment of interest upon the amount already deposited i.e., Rs.5,17,000/- and requested permission to pay the balance amount for getting the sale deed executed. The complaint presently is that the second respondent did not accede to the request made under the aforestated representations. In his counter, the second respondent stated that the appeal filed by the third respondent in A.S.No.165 of 1999 was also dismissed on 19.09.2003. Reference is made to the notices sent to the petitioner with regard to the payment of the balance consideration. The aforestated facts clearly demonstrate that the matter is purely civil in nature as it relates to the rights of the petitioner arising out of the auction sale and the consequences of his non-payment of the sale consideration in terms thereof. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, relied on the judgment dated 25.02.2008 of a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17276 of 2000 and contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. The prayer in the aforestated writ petition was similar in terms to the present writ petition. The petitioner therein sought a declaration that the action of the respondents in not registering a particular land in its favour was illegal. The issue as to whether there was any delay in payment of the sale consideration and the liability of paying interest thereon, also arose in the said case also. In this regard, the learned Judge observed: “It is the specific version of the respondents that despite receipt of notice, the petitioner school did not express its readiness to pay the amount due to the respondents and to get the land registered. Whether the petitioner school did not express its readiness, whether undue delay has been caused by the petitioner school in expressing readiness to fulfil the terms of contract and whether the petitioner school is liable to pay interest to the respondents etc., are the matters to be decided by the civil Court. Therefore, no direction can be given in this writ petition. I do not find any grounds to accede to the prayer of the petitioner school as mentioned above.” In the light of the ratio laid down in the aforestated decision, it is clear that it is not within the province of this Court to decide the liability on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the second respondent to pay interest on the sum not paid or the sum already received. It is to be noticed that the terms and conditions of the auction sale do not speak of any delayed payment, subject to an interest burden. In such circumstances, it is not for this Court to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to specific performance, and if so, on what terms. The remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere and it is for him to avail the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 29.07.2010 Isn