Once auction proceedings are completed and a sale certificate is issued under the SARFAESI Act, challenges to those proceedings in a writ petition are not permissible, as it raises disputed questions of fact.

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. 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 da