ORDER :

A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who claim to be the auction purchasers in respect of land in an extent of Ac.16.28 guntas situate in Sy.Nos.173, 334 (Part), 345, 347, 348 and 349, Yedhira village, Mahabubnagar mandal and District, in an e-auction conducted on 01-02-2020 and were declared successful bidders; pursuant thereto the sale in respect thereof was confirmed in their favour. The total bid amount is Rs.12,10,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Ten Lacs Only) and the petitioners paid the entire amount in respect of the bid by 03-07-2020. However, before the sale certificate could be issued, the petitioners came to know that a part of auctioned land was found to be a surplus land under the provisions of Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and vests with the Government. Since the 2nd respondent did not show prefect title of the land in question, the petitioners made representation dated 01-10-2020 to refund the amounts paid by them with interest @ 18% per annum. Pursuant to the same, an amount of Rs.12,10,92,500/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Ninety Two Thousands Five Hundred Only) was returned to the petitioners after deducting TDS without paying any interest on deposited amount. Hence, this writ petition for appropriate direction to the respondents for payment of interest.

2. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that in the light of the statutory bar on sale of the land in question by virtue of the claim that part of the land vests with the Government and a writ petition being WP No.15201 of 2012 is pending before this Court, the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the auction of the land and the mistake is solely attributable to them, the amount deposited by the petitioners with the 2nd respondent shall have to be construed as “debt” within the meaning of Section 2 (C) of the Interest Act, 1978, and the petitioners are entitled for interest at the commercial transaction rate i.e. @ 18% on the amount deposited by them. It is also contended that the respondents being an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are supposed to act fairly and paid interest having retained substantial amounts for considerable period as the proceedings could not attained finality for no fault of the petitioners. It is stated that the respondent-bank is under obligation to notify the defects in title if any before conducting e-auction which is statutory requirement under Section 55 of the Transfer Property Act, 1880.

3. Sri Praveen Kumar Jain, learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy of redressing their grievance under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and without exhausting the alternate remedy, the petitioners have straightaway rushed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. On facts it is stated that the petitioners themselves wanted refund of the amount deposited by them with the bank before the respondent-bank resolved the title issue with the revenue authorities. It is also stated that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for adjudication and enforcement of contractual rights and for recovery of debts and even on that count writ petition is not maintainable. It is lastly contended that the provisions of the Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 are inapplicable to the land in question as any surplus land vests in the Government only after taking physical possession of the land by the Revenue Divisional Officer or his agent, however in the instant case the land in question has been in the continuous possession of its debtors.

4. The preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in view of an alternative remedy being available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners be rele