THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26907 of 2010 Date: 2.2.2011 Between: Vadlamudi Venkataratnam and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Asst.Registrar-cum-Sale Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru, West Godavari District and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi Counsel for Respondent No. 3: Sri N. Siva Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26907 of 2010 Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notification dated 21.10.2010 in E.P. No.1025 of 2007-08 issued by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri M. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, leaned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. The petitioners pleaded that their father obtained permanent lease of the land admeasuring Acs.4.32 cents in Survey No.1/1 of Lingaraopalem Revenue Village in the year 1957. It is their further pleaded case that in order to recover loan amounts from respondent No.3, respondent no.2 has obtained a Sale Certificate from respondent No.1, in pursuance of which, E.P. No.1025 of 2007-08 was filed before respondent No.1. In the said E.P., the petitioners filed a claim petition before respondent No.1. Alleging that while the said claim petition is pending, the impugned sale notification is issued, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that the claim petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of on 30.8.2007 in their presence and that the said order has not been challenged by the petitioners before any forum. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit controverting this statement contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.1. Inasmuch as the claim petition is stated to have been disposed of, the premise on which the writ petition has been filed does not appear to be correct. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the said order rejecting the claim petition, at their option. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, W.P.M.P. No.34383 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 2nd February, 2011 pnb