JUDGMENT KalyanJyoti Sengupta, C.J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 18th February 2011, by which the prayer of the writ petitioner was allowed giving a direction to the Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation to receive the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- deposited by the writ petitioner and respondent No.3 to re-deliver possession of the Industrial Unit to the writ petitioner. The Corporation was also directed to refund the amount deposited by respondent No.3 including EMD within two weeks from the date on which respondent No.3 makes the claim. The fact of the case is that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 obtained loan from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) for running a small-scale industrial unit, which was set up for producing packaged drinking water. The loan amount could not be repaid within the time, as a result, there has been an outstanding amount of Rs.24,15,000/-. A notice for payment was issued. In response to the notice, the writ petitioner approached for negotiations and on negotiations with the Corporation, it was settled between the parties, namely the writ petitioner and the Corporation, that the Corporation would accept a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as full and final settlement if the same is to be paid in two instalments, one of which is Rs.3,00,000/- by way of down payment and the balance of Rs.14,00,000/- would be paid on or before 28-02-2010. Initially, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid. Thereafter, without waiting for payment of balance amount of Rs.14,00,000/- on or before 28.02.2010, the Corporation issued a notice on 27.01.2010 stating that it had received certain offers in response to its advertisement dated 24.10.2009, and in case any other person is willing to offer, it would consider the offers. Respondent No.3 in the writ petition is said to have made his offer and thus, negotiations have taken place on 18.01.2010. It is the case of the writ petitioner that without waiting for the last date of payment of balance amount i.e., 28.02.2010, the Corporation started taking action to sell the unit. Hence, it was arbitrary action taken in complete breach of the promise and on settled terms. The learned single Judge accepted the case as made out by the writ petitioner. Hence, it was arbitrary action taken in complete breach of the promise and on settled terms. The learned single Judge accepted the case as made out by the writ petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, it was stated that the case made out by the writ petitioner for one time settlement was merely a proposal and it was never accepted. Since the payment was not made, the property was put up for sale by way of advertisement and it was sold to respondent No.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that in terms of the advertisement, his client has purchased the property having found that there has been default in paying the loan amount and there was no encumbrance at all. The learned single Judge has failed to notice that there has been no agreement for one time settlement. The learned single Judge has accepted one side version of the writ petitioner. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 says that there has been one time settlement and the learned single Judge has recorded the fact correctly and rightly interfered with the order. Learned Counsel for the Corporation/respondent No.2 also supports the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petition). He submits that there was no settlement agreed upon subsequently, only it was at the negotiations stage and since the negotiations did not crystallize and no payment was forthcoming, the property was put on hold by way of public auction and that the appellant has lawfully purchased the same by paying entire consideration amount at a time. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge. It appears that the learned single Judge, without considering the case made out by the Corporation in the counter-affidavit that there has been no one time settlement, has accepted the version of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1. We think that without considering the statement and averment of the counter-affidavit, the findings of the learned single Judge with regard to one time settlement is absolutely illegal and such recording is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. We think that without considering the statement and averment of the counter-affidavit, the findings of the learned single Judge with regard to one time settlement is absolutely illegal and such recording is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it appears from the record that the learned single Judge perhaps was persuaded by a letter dated 15.02.2010, wherein it has been stated that the Corporation will put on hold the sale till the payment of Rs.17,00,000/- is received before 28th February 2010. The sale of unit will be confirmed on 1st March 2010 if payment is not received by the stipulated date. Even if taking note of that letter, we can conclude that the sale shall be put on hold, but there is no mention about the one time settlement. We fail to understand on what basis the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that there has been one time settlement. Accordingly, this finding is totally incorrect. The Corporation at the most agreed to put on hold the sale till 28-02-2010, that does not mean that the Corporation has accepted a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as full and final settlement, whereby no right is said to have been created in favour of the writ petitioner. It is settled position of law that a person can approach the writ Court for enforcement of fundamental right, legal right or legally enforceable promise. The promise was that if the payment is made within the time, then the sale would not be held. But, nowhere it has been said that the entire transaction will be closed upon the payment of the aforesaid amount and the writ petitioner will be relieved of other liability. Even on fact, the said amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was not tendered within the time as stated by the writ petitioner and it was deposited only with the intervention of the Court, not before that. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the writ petitioner failed to make out any case of enforceable right not to speak of any legal right. We, therefore, are unable to uphold the judgment and order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the same. The amount deposited in terms of the order of the learned single Judge will be returned to the writ petitioner. It would be open for the Corporation to take steps in accordance with law. We, therefore, are unable to uphold the judgment and order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the same. The amount deposited in terms of the order of the learned single Judge will be returned to the writ petitioner. It would be open for the Corporation to take steps in accordance with law. It appears further that when the writ petitioner did not make any payment, an advertisement was issued and the appellant has purchased the unit and he has already invested huge amount on the unit towards repairs and renovation and it has become very profitable concern at present. We think that when the appellant purchased the unit, there has been no legal impediment or encumbrance. Therefore, the theory of bona fide purchaser for value without notice of encumbrance on the date of sale could be established. Further more, the writ Court cannot take away appellant’s lawfully accrued right or interest because of the default of the writ petitioner. A reference of the claim shall be made within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Pending miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.