ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In all these petitions, the land owners have, essentially, challenged the action of the Bank of auctioning their agricultural lands. That action was initially challenged before the Co-operative Court, which proceedings have been decided against the petitioners/land owners. Those orders are also challenged in the present writ petitions. 3. During the pendency of these petitions, it has now come on record that because of the representations received from different quarters the State initiated enquiry. In that enquiry it has been found that the subject auction conducted by the officials of the Bank was fraudulent. The State, therefore, issued directions to the Bank to initiate appropriate proceedings against its erring officials. It is also matter of record that the Bank has acted upon that direction of the State Government and has proceeded against the erring officials on the assumption that the auction in question was fraudulent. 4. Suffice it to observe that the auction process, which is the subject matter of challenge in these petitions, has been found to be fraudulent. In that situation, the appropriate course for all the Authorities to wit, of the Bank and including the Revenue Authorities must treat the subject auction process as null and void. We, therefore, declare the said auction process as null and void. 5. While doing so, however, we would protect the interest of the auction purchasers by providing them reasonable interest on the amount paid by them to the Bank towards auction price. This arrangement, however, is resisted both by the land owners as well as by the Bank, through their respective counsels. In our opinion, if the auction purchasers are not responsible for the situation which unfolded and culminated in fraudulent auction sale, they should not be made liable or made to suffer the reasonable returns on their investments. The Bank having accepted the amount from the auction purchasers, primarily, will be responsible for returning the principal amount received from the auction purchasers along with reasonable interest, as was payable on fixed deposits made by its other investors/Account holders during the relevant period. Indeed, if the Bank is of the opinion that even the auction purchasers were party to the fraudulent auction sale or had connived with the officials of the Bank, the Bank need not pay the amount towards interest to the auction purchasers. Indeed, if the Bank is of the opinion that even the auction purchasers were party to the fraudulent auction sale or had connived with the officials of the Bank, the Bank need not pay the amount towards interest to the auction purchasers. In that case, the auction purchasers would be entitled only for return of the principal auction price paid by them in respect of the respective lands. 6. As regards apprehension expressed by the Bank that the land owners are not forthcoming to offer the amount due and payable by them, the counsel for the land owners on instructions submits that they are more than willing to pay the outstanding dues provided the Bank issues appropriate demand notice accompanied by the statement of accounts. On receipt of such notice, the land owners would immediately pay the amount to the Bank within the prescribed time. Failure to pay the amount by the land owners within the prescribed time, it will be open to the Bank to proceed against the land owners in accordance with law. 7. It is not in dispute that in all these matters, consequent to the auction, the Bank attempted to handover possession of the subject land to the auction purchasers. That, however, did not fructify because of interim order passed by this Court. In other words, the land owners have continued to remain in possession of their respective lands which have been mortgaged to the Bank. Therefore, the Bank would be free to proceed against the land owners and deal with the mortgaged property by following due process of law. 8. Besides this, we hold that no other issue arises for consideration nor has been pressed before us. 9. It will be open to the petitioners/land owners to deposit the outstanding dues, which according to them are due and payable to the Bank, without waiting for the formal notice to be received from the Bank. After providing due adjustments to such deposits made by the petitioners, the Bank will be free to issue demand notice for recovery of further amount, if any, by furnishing necessary breakup thereof and account statement in support of such claim. 10. The Bank shall take appropriate decision with regard to refund of the principal amount along with interest to the auction purchasers within six weeks from today. 10. The Bank shall take appropriate decision with regard to refund of the principal amount along with interest to the auction purchasers within six weeks from today. As aforesaid, if the Bank is of the opinion that the auction purchasers are also party to the fraudulent auction sale, may return only the principal amount forthwith and call upon the auction purchasers to show cause as to why no interest should be paid by the Bank to them because of their involvement in the fraudulent auction sale, on the basis of material available with the Bank in that behalf. 11. The consequence of this order, needless to observe, is that all concerned Authorities including the Revenue Authorities may treat the auction sale as void ab initio and non est in the eyes of law and treat all the entries made in the record and title documents on the basis of the auction as effaced from the record being non est. In other words, status-quo ante is restored in all the records concerning the name of land owners with endorsement of the mortgage of the subject land in favour of the Bank in that behalf. 12. All these writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. Petitions allowed.