1. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

The respondent bank had conducted an auction sale of property situated at Door No. 2/393 and 394, Kengari Revenue Village Panchayat, comprised in Survey No. 193, Kilkotagiri, Nilgiris District on 02.02.2012 under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by inviting tenders for open auction. The petitioner was declared as successful bidder. The respondent had issued a sale certificate after receiving a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- towards sale consideration. On the same day, the possession of the property was also handed over to the petitioner. After taking possession, the petitioner realised that the property auctioned in Old Survey No. 193 has been changed into New Survey No. 404/8 which in turn was sub divided as S. No. 404/8-A, 8B and 8C and that an extent of 3.70 cents alone was physically available. As per the tender notification, the said property was described to be comprised in S. No. 193, admeasuring an area of 6.50 cents. The petitioner trusting on the terms of the tender notification, had participated in the auction thinking that he was purchasing 6.50 cents. When it was factually realised that the property was only 3.70 cents and not 6.50 cents, the petitioner had issued a legal notice to the respondent bank on 08.04.2013, seeking for refund of the sale amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- together with interest from 02.12.2012. Though the respondent bank had received the said legal notice, they had failed to reply to the same and hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Mr. N. Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had participated in the auction held by the respondent based on the details given by the respondent bank in the tender notification that was published in the newspapers on 02.01.2012. Since the property to be comprised in Survey No. 193 was described to measuring an area of 6.50 cents, he had opted to bid an exorbitant of amount of Rs. 11,15,000/-. The petitioner had also applied for the encumbrance certificate and ensured that the property had no encumbrances that were detrimental to the title of the auctioned property and therefore, believing the auction notification, he had purchased the same. When the petitioner had realised that only an extent of 3.70 cents was available on physical verification, he had directly requested the bank to refund the sale amount with interest which was also ignored. It is the case of the petitioner that had the bank revealed the physical extent to be 3.70 cents only, he would have either opted out of the tender or quoted 50% of the amount alone. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent bank is bound to refund the sale amount.

3. Mr. P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank would submit that the auction notification had clearly stated that the lands were sold in "as is where is condition." According to him, the petitioner had personally inspected and measured the extent of the property in question before participating in the auction and after satisfying about the correctness of the extent, he had purchased the same. Hence, the respondent bank will not be liable for refunding the sale amount.

4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either and perused the entire materials available on record.

5. Before analysing the authenticity of the extent of land auctioned by the respondent bank, it would be relevant to point out that when the writ petition was heard, I had specifically posed a question to the learned counsel for the respondent bank that the counter affidavit did not specifically state that the lands auctioned was to an extent of 6.50 cents and hence, directed the respondent bank to file an additional counter affidavit. Subsequently, an additional counter affidavit was also filed in which the Authorised Officer of the respondent bank had stated that the actual extent sold by the respondent bank