ORDER Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The counsel on record had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and also the material, which had been placed before this Court. 3. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not registering the auctioned land in favour of petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and further direct the respondents herein to register the auctioned land to the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. The respondent bank filed counter-affidavit. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that the first respondent herein issued tender notification on 05.05.2005 to auction fixed assets on 10.06.2005 under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') at State Bank of Hyderabad, Collectorate Complex Branch, Karimnagar. In pursuance of the tender Notification, the petitioner deposited Rs.30,000/- and participated in tender held on 10.06.2005 and auctioned 1st term 244 sq mts for Rs.4,31,000/- and on the directions and terms and conditions of the Bank authorities, he immediately deposited Rs.2,93,000/- within 24 hours from the date of auction and the balance amount was deposited within 15 days. Accordingly, he was deposited total amount of Rs.4,31,000/- to the bank authorities as consideration of auctioned plot. 6. It is further stated that after compliance of the terms and conditions of the tender notification, the respondents herein shall register the auctioned land in his favour immediately, but the respondents failed to register the same in his favour in spite of number of representations. After lapse of nearly one year, the respondents herein themselves paid Rs.4,01,000/- to the petitioner with interest of Rs.17,958/- at the rate of 5.6% per year and the balance amount was kept with the respondents and further informed the petitioner that the auctioned amount has to be paid at the time of registration of the land. 7. It is also stated that though the auction was held on 10.06.2005, the respondents herein are not taking any steps to register the auctioned land in his favour. 7. It is also stated that though the auction was held on 10.06.2005, the respondents herein are not taking any steps to register the auctioned land in his favour. It is stated that in spite of number of representations and request, the respondents herein are not taking any steps to register the land in his favour as per the terms and conditions. It is further stated that having no other alternative remedy, he filed a representation dated 10.03.2006 before the first respondent herein with a request to register the auctioned land 244 sq mts in his favour as early as possible and the same was acknowledged on 10.03.2006, but the respondents herein had not even taken any action. 8. Certain other facts had also been narrated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed, it is averred in para 3 that the respondent bank sanctioned cash credit facility at the request of one Sri Akula Venkateswarlu who is the proprietor of M/s. Srikanth Medical Agencies, Karimnagar. After availing the above said loan facility, the borrower has executed loan security documents and created mortgage by depositing title deeds in respect of immovable properties and one such property is Plot No.10 in Survey No.983 admeasuring 244 Sq. Yards standing in the name of the borrower situated at Srinagar Colony, Karimnagar town. As the borrower failed to repay the amount of cash credit facility as agreed upon, the account of M/s. Srikanth Medical Agencies was classified as non-performing Asset as per the RBI guidelines and this respondent bank proceeded under the Act for enforcement of the security. 10. It is further averred that the respondent bank issued statutory notices and had taken possession of the mortgaged properties in accordance with law. As the borrower and also the guarantors failed to repay the amount as demanded under the Act, the respondent bank published Auction sale notice for sale of the Secured Assets including the above said property bearing Plot No.10 in Survey No.983 in an extent of 244 Sq.Yards, Srinagar Colony, Karimnagar vide Auction notification, dated 05.05.2005. The auction of the above said property was fixed on 10.06.2005 and the reserve price was fixed as Rs.4,20,000/-. The auction of the above said property was fixed on 10.06.2005 and the reserve price was fixed as Rs.4,20,000/-. As per the auction conditions, the property put for auction is "as is where is" condition and the authorized officer is entitled to postpone or cancel the auction or reject the bid without informing any reasons. 11. It is averred further in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioner herein has participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder for the above said property having quoted Rs.4,31,000/-. He has deposited the entire bid amount and requested the bank to issue sale certificate. This respondent bank with an intention to finalise the auction sale of the above said property through their approved valuer and after measurement of the plot this respondent bank was surprised to know that the extent of plot is only 153 Sq. Yards in place of 244 Sq. Yards. As the extent of plot is less than the mortgaged land and the auction was conducted for the land in an extent of 244 Sq. Yards as mortgaged to the bank, this respondent bank could not issue the sale certificate in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the authorized officer has given an option to the petitioner herein who is the auction purchaser of the above said property either to accept the plot "as is where is" condition or to take back the deposited amount. The petitioner herein has agreed to take back the deposited amount and hence this respondent bank paid Rs.4,18,968/- including the interest of Rs.17,968/- through banker's cheque on 28.03.2006. However, the writ petitioner herein has requested the bank to retain the amount of Rs.30,000/- paid towards EMD so that if the bank found area of 244 Sq. Yards, he can get the Sale Certificate in terms of the auction held on 10.06.2005. 12. Further, it is stated that the respondent bank had published the auction notice inviting the bidders to participate in the auction for purchase of the properties mentioned therein on as "is where is condition". The writ petitioner herein had inspected the plot and agreed to purchase "as is where is condition" and participated in the bid and, therefore, he has no right to claim for issue of the Sale Certificate and register the land in an extent of 244 Sq. Yards. The writ petitioner herein had inspected the plot and agreed to purchase "as is where is condition" and participated in the bid and, therefore, he has no right to claim for issue of the Sale Certificate and register the land in an extent of 244 Sq. Yards. Since he had opted for receiving the amount deposited and received the amount back, he has no right to seek any direction from this Court as specified in the relief portion of the writ petition. It is also stated that as aggrieved party, the petitioner is having alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act. 13. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, the fact that the writ petitioner participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder for the property in question is not in serious dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner had deposited the entire bid amount and requested the bank to issue sale certificate. The specific stand taken by the respondent bank is that with an intention to finalise the auction sale of the aforesaid property, the concerned plot, through their approved valuer and after measurement of the plot, the banking institution to its surprise, came to know that the extent of plot is only 153 sq. yards in place of 244 sq. yards. As the extent of plot is less than the mortgaged land and the auction was conducted for the land in an extent of 244 sq. yards as mortgaged by the bank, this respondent bank could not issue sale certificate in accordance with the Act aforesaid and the Rules. Therefore, the authorized officer had given an option to the petitioner, who is the auction purchaser, either to accept the plot 'as is where is condition' or to take back the deposited amount. The petitioner agreed to take back the deposited amount and hence, the respondent bank paid Rs.4,18,968/- including interest of Rs.17,968/- through banker's cheque on 28.03.2006. However, the writ petitioner had requested the bank to retain an amount of Rs.30,000/- paid towards EMD, and if the bank found 244 sq. yards area, he can get the sale certificate in terms of the auction held on 10.06.2005. 14. However, the writ petitioner had requested the bank to retain an amount of Rs.30,000/- paid towards EMD, and if the bank found 244 sq. yards area, he can get the sale certificate in terms of the auction held on 10.06.2005. 14. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, in the event of the petitioner being agreeable to take that extent which is available, let the petitioner submit a representation to both respondent Nos.1 and 2 and let respondent Nos.1 and 2 take an appropriate decision in this regard. 15. In the light of the facts and circumstances, let the petitioner submit such representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of four weeks from today and let respondent Nos.1 and 2 take appropriate decision within eight weeks thereafter. 16. In the peculiar circumstances, except giving this direction, no positive relief as such can be granted. 17. Accordingly, with the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.