S. Rajeswaran, J.

1. The issue involved in both the writ petitions and the respondent Bank are one and the same and a common order is being passed to dispose of both the writ petitions.

2. The case of the writ petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows:-

The petitioner is an auction purchaser of the subject property measuring an extent of 1 acre and 13 cents in the public auction held on 03.08.2006, as per the DRC proceedings in DRC No. 331 of 2000 in O.A. No. 1134 of 1998, conducted by the Recovery Officer of DRT-I (subsequently transferred to DRT-II and re-numbered as DRC No. 44 of 2007 in DRT-II). The petitioner purchased the scheduled property for a sum of Rs. 32,51,000/-(Rupees thirty two lakhs fifty one thousand only) and paid 25% of the bid amount on the auction date itself by way of two cheques for Rs. 1,10,000/- and for Rs. 7,02,750/-. Thereafter, he went to the revenue authorities to verify about the land purchased by him in the above said auction sale. To his surprise he found from the revenue records that 11 cents of the land out of the total extent of 1 acre and 13 cents, was acquired by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) much before the auction held and the land available was only to an extent of 1 acre and 2 cents, as against that of 1 acre and 13 cents purchased by the petitioner in the auction sale. Therefore, immediately he gave instruction for stop payment to his bankers for the payment of Rs. 7,02,750/- and informed the same to the Recovery Officer also.

3. Thereafter, he wrote a letter to the Recovery Officer to reduce the sale consideration proportionately to the extent of 1.02 acres only, which was actually in existence. At the request of the Recovery Officer, he paid the sum of Rs. 7,02,750/- by way of a Pay Order on 10.08.2006 under protest along with a letter dated 10.08.2006, enclosing a copy of the revenue records about the acquisition by CMDA. Thus, the petitioner had paid 25% of the total sale consideration to the Recovery Officer. The Recovery Officer has also requested the Tahsildar by way of a letter to measure the land with the help of a town surveyor and to file a report to him so that appropriate orders would be passed in the matter. But, without any steps having been taken in this regard, the Recovery Officer of the DRT-II insisted on him to pay the balance sale consideration, for the refund of the balance amount due to him for the reduction in the extent of land. Accordingly, on 29.08.2007, he wrote a letter to the recovery officer of DRT-II enclosing a pay order for a sum of Rs. 24,70,770/- being the total consideration for the entire extent of 1.13 acres with the request for the refund of a sum of Rs. 3,19,634/- being the value of the land to an extent of 11 cents which was acquired by CMDA. After issuance of the sale certificate, he filed an application for refund of the said sum being the excess amount paid to the Recovery Officer and the said application was later on withdrawn by him. On 10.10.2007, the Recovery Officer, DRT-II issued a sale certificate in his name with the S. No. 1201/1, measuring an extent of 1.13 acres and the same was informed to the Sub Registrar for registration. On receipt of the sale certificate, he wrote a letter dated 11.06.2008 to the respondent bank for releasing the parent document in his favour and accordingly, the parent documents were released in his favour and he has been in possession of the original title deed. The subject land being a vacant land, he took possession of the same on 12.06.2009 itself. Subsequently, it was found that the sale certificate issued by the DRT-II contains a wrong S.No.1201/1 instead of 1202/1. Hence he filed an application in M.A. No. 37/10 before the DRT-II for correcting the Survey Number in the sale certificate by the Recovery Officer of DRT-II. On allowing such an application on 13.04.2010, a fresh sale certificate was issued on 23.04.2010 with