Yanaki Lakshumaiah vs The Special Cadre Deputy ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10542 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10542 AP
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yanaki Lakshumaiah vs The Special Cadre Deputy ... on 21 November, 2024

APHC010382492009
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                              AT AMARAVATI                 [3330]
                       (Special Original Jurisdiction)

    THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER
         TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                    WRIT PETITION NO: 20773/2009

Between:

Yanaki Lakshumaiah and Others                    ...PETITIONER(S)

                                AND

The Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/officer     ...RESPONDENT(S)

On and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. L J VEERA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V R REDDY KOVVURI

2. M SIVA JYOTHI

The Court made the following order:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

".....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 1st respondent in issuing Certificate under Section 71(1) of A.P Cooperative Societies Act,1964 against the father of the petitioners on 28-10-1999 in Claim No.761/1999- 2000 and the consequential sale Certificate issued in E.P No.1770/2000-2001 in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of the land of the petitioners without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry against dead person as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, highhanded, abuse of official power and discriminatory and against statutory provisions consequently set aside the Certificate in Claim No.761/1999-2000 and the consequential sale Certificate in E.P.No.1770/2000-2001 dt 11.9.2006 in favour of the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders ...."

2. The case of the petitioners is that one late Pedda Ramaiah,

who is father of the petitioners, availed loan by mortgaging the

lands in Sy.No.660/1 Ac.0.33 cents; Sy.no.660/3 Ac.0.28 cents;

Sy.No.660/4 Ac.0.18 cents; Sy.No.654/2 Ac.0.50 cents;

Sy.No.647/1-A Ac.0.05 cents; Sy.No.647 Ac.1.42 cents;

Sy.No.661 Ac.0.85 cents situated at Kesapuram Village,

B.Mattam Mandal of YSR Kadapa District, from Somireddypalli

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.,

Somireddypalli. Due to default committed by him, the society has

invoked the proceedings before the authority under Andhra

Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short „the Act‟).

Accordingly, award was passed on 28.10.1999 in Claim

No.761/1999-2000.

3. Subsequently, the society filed an execution petition for the

realization of the amount, and a sale certificate was issued in

favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, aggrieved by the

issuance of the sale certificate under Section 71(1) of the Act, has

filed the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that the

award or order passed against the deceased person, the father of

the petitioner, who died on 17-12-1984, is null and void.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

award and the consequential sale certificate issued under Section

71(1) of the Act are liable to be set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondents.

5. At the outset the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the father of the petitioners, one late

Peddababu Ramadan, was murdered on 17-12-1984, and that

the sale certificate issued under Section 71(1) of the Act, and the

said sale certificate issued against the deceased person, is

invalid and unsustainable in law. Therefore, it is prayed that the

sale certificate be set aside. However, the learned counsel was

unable to specify the FIR number in this regard.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the society

(Bank) that the father of the writ petitioners had availed a loan

from Somireddypalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society

Ltd. by mortgaging lands. Due to default in repayment, the society

initiated legal proceedings in accordance with the provisions of

the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Subsequently, an

application was filed before the Deputy Registrar, District Co-

operative Bank Ltd., Kadapa, to issue a certificate for the

recovery of an outstanding amount of Rs. 19,253/- as on 30-06-

1999. The then Sale Officer, after following the procedure

prescribed under Section 71(1) of the Act, issued an order for the

recovery of Rs. 19,253/- with further interest at the rate of 14%

per annum from 01-07-1999.

7. Basing on the sale certificate issued, decree-holder filed

E.P.No.1770/2000-2001 for the recovery of the loan amount due

from the judgment debtor. Thereafter, the sale was conducted on

22-05-2006, and the property was sold in favor of the 2nd

respondent for the sale price of Rs. 27,500/-. As there was no

challenge to the sale, a confirmation of the sale was issued under

Rule 52(14)(iii) of the A.P. Agricultural Co-operative Societies

Rules,1964. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition be

dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that

Somireddypalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society

Ltd., is not made as a party to the writ petition. In the absence of

proper and necessary parties writ petition cannot be disposed of

effectively. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

9. A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the

persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being

before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it

as respondents in a representative capacity, if their number is too

large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the

petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss

the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.

10. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member,

Board Of Revenue,1 the Court observed thus:-

"7. ....it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but

AIR 1963 SC 786

whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in this proceeding. "

11. Admittedly, in the case on hand father of the petitioners has

availed loan from the Somireddypalli Primary Agricultural

Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., and the petitioners have not

made the Somireddypalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit

Society Ltd., as a party to the writ petition, who is proper and

necessary party to the writ petition. The Court understands from

the above decisions that, in the absence of a necessary party, no

adjudication can take place, and the non-joinder would, in fact, be

fatal to the case.

12. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any