Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pilli Nagaraju, Ysr Kadapa Dist 3 Others vs Prl Secy, Coop. Socy Dept., Hyd 4 Ot on 27 August, 2024
APHC010808682016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 15904/2016
Between:
Pilli Nagaraju, Ysr Kadapa Dist & 3 others ...Petitioner(s)
AND
Prl Secy Coop Socy Dept Hyd 4 and Others ...Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)
2. S KHADER MOHIDDIN
3. D SESHASAYANA REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India for the following relief/s:
"...to issue Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of
the 3rd respondent passed in O.A. No.46/2014, dated
17.11.2014 by setting aside the Award of the 2nd
respondent in ARC.No.3/2010-11 dated 24.05.2011,
as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the
provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, and
consequently by setting aside the impugned order of
the 3rd respondent passed in O.A.No.46/2014 dated
17.11.2014 restore the order of the 2nd respondent
passed in ARC No.3/2010-11 dated 24.05.2011 and
pass such other or further orders .....
2. The 5th respondent herein is the member of the 4th
respondent society and he was allotted plot No.33 by a dip and
later as there were stray bits available, the society auctioned them
to the members of the Society. The 5th respondent participated in
the bid and became prized bidder of plot No. 'L' and the society
registered both the plots on 06.07.1989. Thus, he is in possession
of two plots since then. Subsequently, the 5th respondent herein
alienated Plot No.33 and retained plot 'L' and shifted his residence
to elsewhere.
3. Later, the 5th respondent came to know about sale of the
plot No. 'L' by dividing into two plots to one Sri P. Subbanna and
Ganganna, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in O.A.
No.46 of 2014 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at
Vijayawada, and who are not the parties in the present Writ
Petition, executed nominal sale deeds dated 27.07.2000 and
29.09.2000, by the 4th respondent herein. The 5th respondent
initiated arbitration proceedings vide ARC No.1 of 2008 before the
Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/ Arbitrator, who is
arrayed as 2nd respondent in the present Writ Petition. The 2nd
respondent/ arbitrator adjudicated the matter and dismissed the
claim of the 5th respondent herein on the ground that it is barred by
limitation.
4. Aggrieved by the order, the 5th respondent herein preferred
an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal at Warangal Camp
Court at Hyderabad, vide C.T.A. No.104 of 2009, which was
allowed on 11.03.2010, on the ground that the order impugned is
in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the award
in ARC No.1 of 2008, dated 22.05.2009, remanded back to the
Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Arbitrator to adjudicate
afresh, directing the arbitrator to give an opportunity to both the
parties. On such remand, the Arbitrator-cum-Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, has dismissed the proceeding which is
renumbered as ARC No.3 of 2010-11.
5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Kadapa / Arbitrator, the 5 th respondent
herein filed appeal under Section 76 of the A.P. Co-operative
Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the
same was registered as O.A. No.46 of 2014, on the file of the
Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada.
6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence produced by the petitioners herein and the 5th
respondent, has set aside the order in ARC No.1 of 2008, and
declared the 5th respondent as rightful owner of the property.
7. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition on the
ground that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law,
weight of evidence and probability of the case and the Tribunal has
not properly considered/ appreciated the evidence and are in
violation of principals of natural justice and therefore prayed to set
aside the order in O.A. 46 of 2016 dated 17.11.2014.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on
the judgment passed in O.S. No.12 of 2018, on the file of the
Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, wherein the 5th respondent has filed
suit for declaration and for permanent injunction on, for the very
same scheduled property. The suit was decreed in favour of the
5th respondent and 5th respondent is declared as rightful owner of
the property.
9. As per the Writ affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition,
the Writ Petitioners traces their title through their ancestors. Even
assuming that their ancestors are having title it was not stated that
their ancestors are the members of the society, for adjudication by
the Arbitrator under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The
petitioners have not asserted either specifically or evasively that
they have purchased the property from 1) Sri P. Subbanna S/o.
Dasappa and 2) Sri M. Ganganna S/o. Ganganna or they have not
stated the pedigree/ relation in between the above said persons
with writ petitioners, in the absence of the petitioners cannot
maintain the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioners are not
parties to the O.A. and they are claiming property through
1) Sri P. Subbanna and 2) M. Ganganna, who purchased the
property from the society, the said two persons were not made
party to the Writ Petition, else the Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned
counsel Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar miserably failed to explain the
above contentions. On perusal of the records, it appears that no
leave petition was filed to assail the order in O.A. No.46 of 2014 by
the petitioners as they are not the parties to the O.A.
10. As seen from the judgment in O.S. No.12 of 2008 as well as
O.A. No. 46 of 2014, the 5th respondent was declared as the
rightful owner of the property. Therefore, the contention raised by
the petitioner that no opportunity was given and the Tribunal went
beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and passed orders is
untenable, and the same is rejected as both Courts categorically
held that the 5th respondent is the owner of the property.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed on the aforesaid
grounds. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this
Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 27.08.2024
Harin
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
W.P.No. 15904 OF 2016
Date: 27-08-2024
Harin
