Order : Heard the party in person and the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent. The 2 nd respondent is the auction purchaser and as he died, his legal representative was impleaded as the 3 rd respondent. The 1 st respondent also filed counter. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in registering the Sale Deed Document No.2646 of 2013, dated 09.07.2013 to the extent of Ac.0.41 cents in Survey No.126/1A situated at Chintakunta village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District and Document No.2646 of 2013 dated 09.07.2013 to the extent of Ac.1.70 cents in survey No.128 situated at Chintakunta village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District were registered in the name of Mr.Chekka Subrahmanyam. 3. The party-in-person submits that he worked as a Telugu Lecturer in S.V.K.P.Degree College, Markapur. He purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac.7.11 cents in his village in 3 survey numbers on 26.10.2004. He applied for loan against his salary for construction of house in Ac.0.04 cents. Andhra Bank accepted his application and sanctioned loan on 10.11.2005 against his salary for construction of house in Ac.0.04 cents in survey No.126/1A. His colleague who is a Hindi lecturer in the same college by name Smt.Venkata Lakshmi, stood as surety for the repayment of the same. The Principal of the college agreed to send an amount of Rs.6,500/- per month directly from his account to the bank towards repayment of loan. He also took personal loan of Rs.42,225/- agreeing to repay from his salary. In the course of time, the college management forcibly stopped him from his service and as such the monthly E.M.I.s could not be paid, the auction purchaser and the bank i.e., the 2 nd respondent and the 5 th respondent, and the principal of the college colluded and decided to auction the land of the petitioner for the purpose of clearing the housing loan and personal loan of the petitioner. He further submitted that his retirement was due after 31.05.2020, had he been allowed to continue in the service, he could have repaid the loan amount. However, but the entire agricultural land in the three survey numbers of Chintakunta village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District was sold away by the bank vide sale certificate dated 29.05.2013. He further submitted that his retirement was due after 31.05.2020, had he been allowed to continue in the service, he could have repaid the loan amount. However, but the entire agricultural land in the three survey numbers of Chintakunta village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District was sold away by the bank vide sale certificate dated 29.05.2013. When the loan was sanctioned for construction of house in Ac.0.04 cents, the bank illegally sold the remaining agricultural land in extent of Ac.0.38 cents in survey No.126/1A and as well as Ac.1.70 cents which is situated next behind it. Since he is not in a position to repay the loan, it should have been recovered from the surety. But, the bank illegally sold away the subject land. Hence, seeking the cancellation of registered documents bearing document No.2646 of 2013 dated 09.07.2013, in respect of the land in Ac.1.70 cents in survey No.128 and Ac.0.41 cents in survey No. 126/1A. 4. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel appearing for 5 th respondent / bank submits that the petitioner obtained housing loan of Rs.4,95,000/- for construction of house and the land in an extent of Ac.2.11 cents (Ac.0.41 cents in survey no.126 / 1A and 1.70 cents in survey No.128) was mortgaged and obtained personal loan of Rs.97,000/- with individual surety and the extent of Ac.5.00 cents in survey No.115 of Chintakunta village, Markapur Mandal was mortgaged on 10.11.2005. The petitioner created an equitable mortgage over the said land by deposit of title deeds on 10.11.2005. Further, the petitioner sold away an extent of Ac.5.00 in survey no.115 of Chekka Venkata Subbaiah vide registered sale deed dated 24.03.2008 which is not in dispute. Further, the above said loan amount became NPA on 31.10.2009. The bank issued demand notice under SARFAESI Act on 25.11.2009, possession notice dated 15.03.2010, and the sale notice fixing the date of auction. On 04.06.2010 vide sale notice 28.04.2010, as there were no bidders on 04.06.2010, sale notice was issued vide E-auction notice again on 13.08.2010 fixing the date of auction on 22.09.2010. Then the petitioner filed the writ petition No.23069 of 2010 and the erst while High Court granted stay subject to deposit of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within eight (8) weeks vide orders dated 20.09.2010. Then the petitioner filed the writ petition No.23069 of 2010 and the erst while High Court granted stay subject to deposit of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within eight (8) weeks vide orders dated 20.09.2010. Then, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the DRT vide order dated 20.12.2012, then the respondent Bank issued Rule 8 (6) – 30 days sale notice dated 11.03.2013 and E-auction notice was issued dated 25.04.2013 fixing the date of auction on 29.05.2013. Petitioner filed S.A.No.133 of 2013 challenging the auction notice on 29.05.2013 and there was no stay. Hence, the petitioner conducted the auction and sold away the land in an extent of Ac.2.11 cents with building construction on 29.11.2013. The said S.A.No.133 of 2013 was disposed of on 10.06.2013 directing the petitioner to pay the entire liability within 15 days and in default ,liberty was granted to the bank to confirm the sale and proceed further. 5. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17856 of 2013 contending that though he is ready to deposit 7.50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) the respondent-bank therein is not receiving the same and demanding Rs.9,80,361/-. The Honourable High Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.4,50,000/- within 24 hours, vide order dated 24.06.2013. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount as directed by the High Court. Then, the bank issued sale certificate on 27.06.2013 for Ac.2.11 cents together with building in favour of the auction purchaser i.e., the 2 nd respondent herein who is no more and his legal representative, the 3 rd respondent is there on record. The sale proceedings were adjusted towards liability in both the auctions and excess sale proceeds of Rs.99,430/- were credited to the S.B account of the petitioner on 27.06.2013 and the writ petition No.17856 of 2013 was also disposed of by the erstwhile High Court on 02.07.2013. 6. Considering the request of the writ petitioner the bank also returned the old sale deeds relating to the other property in an extent of Ac.5.00 in survey No.115 of Chintakunta village, Markapur. Having accepted the sale in 2013, itself the petitioner is now questioning the registration of the sale deed document No.2646 of 2013 dated 09.07.2013 after long lapse of time by filing this writ petition. Having accepted the sale in 2013, itself the petitioner is now questioning the registration of the sale deed document No.2646 of 2013 dated 09.07.2013 after long lapse of time by filing this writ petition. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as the sale proceedings were concluded with respect to the subject property in an extent of Ac.7.11 cents for the purpose of clearing the existing loans of the petitioner, they cannot be re-opened in this writ petition, that too, when the prayer is sought for cancellation of the subject sale deed document dated 09.07.2013, no relief can be granted in this writ petition, as it amounts to re- opening of the proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Further the relief sought by the petitioner with respect to the cancellation of registered document is involving disputed questions of facts as contended by the petitioner and the same cannot be gone into in this writ petition and as such, it is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.