JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The brief facts of this case are that in a proceeding under Section 29 of the SFC Act initiated by opposite party no.2-Orissa State Financial Corporation, the property in question (being plot no. 28/A, IDCO measuring an area of Ac.2.22, Old Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack) was auctioned as the loanee had failed to pay the dues of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. The petitioner had initially given its offer of Rs.24,00,000/- for the said plot measuring Ac.2.22 dec. of land, which, after negotiation, was increased to Rs.36,00,000/- and finally the plot, measuring Ac.2.22 was sold in favour of the petitioner and agreement for sale of the immovable asset was executed by the O.S.F.C. in favour of the petitioner on 29.12.1997 under Annexure-4, wherein in the schedule the details of the property had been mentioned that it was IDCO Plot No. 28/A, Old Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack measuring an area of Ac. 2.22 dec. The possession of the said property was also given to the petitioner on 2.1.1998, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 2. Thereafter, the IDCO raised a dispute that the plot in question was measuring Ac. 1.5 dec. and thus, the O.S.F.C. had given possession of excess land because of which IDCO was not executing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a direction to transfer the leasehold rights of plot no. 28/A, IDCO measuring an area of Ac.2.22, Old Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack as per sale agreement dated 29.12.1997. 3. We have heard Sri R.P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.K. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1-OSFC and Sri B.Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party no.2-IDCO and perused the record. Pleadings between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have been exchanged. Despite time having been granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.1. 4. It is not disputed that the advertisement issued by opposite party no.1-OSFC, for sale of the plot in question under section 29 of the SFC Act, was for an area of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land for which the petitioner had offered an initial price of Rs. 24,00,000/-, which was, on negotiation increased to Rs. 36,00,000/-. 5. 4. It is not disputed that the advertisement issued by opposite party no.1-OSFC, for sale of the plot in question under section 29 of the SFC Act, was for an area of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land for which the petitioner had offered an initial price of Rs. 24,00,000/-, which was, on negotiation increased to Rs. 36,00,000/-. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the price of Rs.36,00,000/- was only because of the Ac. 2.22 area of the land, which was advertised and was in possession of the erstwhile leaseholder. After the petitioner having deposited the entire amount, the dues of the erstwhile leaseholder were settled with the OSFC and the other dues were also paid from the deposit made by the petitioner. The submission thus is that in case the petitioner was not assured of being transfer of Ac.2.22 dec. of land, it would not have offered the price of Rs.36,00,000/-. It is thus, contended that two Government bodies namely, OSFC and IDCO are responsible for whatever wrong has been done and the petitioner, who was the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, cannot be deprived of the property which was purchased by it in an auction and thereafter by negotiation. 6. Sri B.K. Dash, learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the loanee i.e. erstwhile leaseholder was in possession of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land, being plot no. 28/A, IDCO Old Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack and that the OSFC had advertised for sale of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land, for which an agreement for sale was executed on 29.12.1997 and possession of the entire area of Ac.2.22 dec. of land, handed over to the petitioner on 2.1.1998. 7. Sri B.Mohanty, learned counsel for the IDCO has stated that the plot No. 28/A was of Ac.1.5 dec. of land only. On being questioned, Sri Mohanty has stated that even though public notice of the auction of the plot was issued by the OSFC, no objection had ever been raised by IDCO with regard to the area of the plot. It is also not disputed that the erstwhile leaseholder was in possession of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land, which was transferred in favour of the petitioner by sale agreement on 29.12.1997 and possession handed over on 2.1.1998. 8. It is also not disputed that the erstwhile leaseholder was in possession of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land, which was transferred in favour of the petitioner by sale agreement on 29.12.1997 and possession handed over on 2.1.1998. 8. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the two State Authorities cannot get together to deprive a private party of his valuable rights, for which it has paid valid consideration and as such, at this stage, depriving the petitioner of the area of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land being plot no. 28/A, IDCO Old Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack would be unjustified in law. In case there is any dispute with regard to the area which has been sold to the petitioner, it is for the IDCO to realize the price of the excess area from the OSFC, which had advertised for the entire area of Ac. 2.22 dec. of land which was in possession of the loanee and possession of which had been transferred in favour of the petitioner two decades back. 9. In view of the aforesaid and with the observations made hereinabove, we allow this writ petition and direct the opposite party no. 2 to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, for which opposite party no.1 shall extend all cooperation.