SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner is an auction purchaser. He seeks a direction to the UCO Bank, Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad (hereinafter, the bank), to refund the sale consideration of Rs.4,80,44,000/- paid by him, with interest at 18% per annum, by declaring the auction sale held by it in relation to Plot No.13, admeasuring 425 square yards with a house constructed thereon, bearing Door No. 1-89/6/2/5 in Survey Nos.43 to 47 and 49-part of Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal.

2. Facts, to the extent germane, are as follows: The bank published mega e-auction sale notice dated 25.07.2016 in daily newspapers on 27.07.2016. Thereunder, it also proposed to sell the subject property, which it held as a secured asset. The reserve price fixed for its sale was Rs.4,34,44,000/-. The petitioner participated in the auction held on 29.08.2016 and emerged the highest bidder for this item of property at Rs.4,80,44,000/-. Having paid 25% of the bid amount on the date of the sale, he deposited the balance sale consideration on 12.09.2016. Aggrieved by this sale, M/s.V.G.Constructions, the borrower, filed an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, the SARFAESI Act) in S.A.No.191 of 2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter, the Tribunal). By order dated 27.09.2016, the Tribunal set aside the auction sale. Aggrieved thereby, the bank filed Appeal No.25 of 2017/437 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter, the Appellate Tribunal). The appeal was allowed by order dated 10.07.2017, setting aside the order of the Tribunal and confirming the auction sale. The petitioner was also a party to the appellate proceedings. At that stage, the petitioner learnt that the bank had misrepresented several facts. The possession of the subject property was not even with it and no steps were taken by it to secure the actual physical possession and control of the same. Upon enquiries, the petitioner also came to know that the registration authorities were refusing to register the sale certificate in relation to the subject property as proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity, the Act of 1976) had concluded upto the stage of Section 10(6) thereof. Further, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation informed the petitioner vide letter dated 22.09.2017 that no regularization proceedings had been issued on 26.10.2009, as claimed, in relation to the construction of a house on the subject property and that the application for such regularization had been rejected as the land in question fell within the full tank level of the lake, Durgam Cheruvu, as earmarked by the Irrigation Department of the State. The Urban Land Ceiling Authorities informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 05.10.2017, that possession of the lands in Survey Nos.43 and 44/1 of Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, had been taken over in C.C.No.F1/403/05 as per their record. The land in question was therefore stated to be ceiling surplus land. The Irrigation Department also confirmed, vide letter dated 17.10.2017, that the subject land fell within the full tank level of Durgam Cheruvu. Construction activity is prohibited within the full tank level of any lake and therefore, the house standing in the subject land was constructed illegally. The regularization proceedings dated 26.10.2009 provided to the petitioner were not genuine as per the communication received from the municipal authorities. As the bank had suppressed material defects in the subject land, whereby lawful title could not be conveyed by it, the petitioner made a representation to the bank on 17.03.2017 requesting it to refund the amounts paid by him along with interest thereon. A legal notice was also gotten issued by him on 14.08.2017 on the same lines. By letter