Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its ... on 18 September, 2024
APHC010468812018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 22474/2018
Between:
Tirumalasetti Venkata Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S)
Secretary and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. NALLAMILLI NAGA SOMENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)
2. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA
The Court made the following order:
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to pass an order or Writ or direction, more particularly one in
the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the refusal of the 3 rd
respondent to deal with the claim petitions of the petitioners with
regard to sale/auction property(ies) of the petitioners in
connection with E.P.Nos.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30 and 31 for
adjudication by the 3rd respondent Assistant Registrar/Sale
Officer even after specific direction by in W.P.36861/2018 by
this Hon'ble Court as unconscionable, illegal and in gross
violation of the petitioners' rights enshrined under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India in AP Cooperative Societies Act, 1964
and against the principles of natural justice and consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to transfer E.P.Nos.20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
27, 30 and 31 to another competent adjudication officer/sale
officer for fair adjudication of the proceedings and disposal and
pass such other order or orders...."
2. The main grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition
is that an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in R.S.No.31/6 of Venkatapuram
Panchayat, was purchased by one Kola Narasimha Rao, who is the
great grandfather of the 1st petitioner on 30.08.1954 vide document
No.3392 of 1954 from one Meka China Somaiah for valuable
consideration and another house site in an extent of Ac.0-20 cents in
R.S.No.105 of Venkatapuram Village was purchased on 11.07.1967
under the registered sale deed. In an oral partition among the family
members, one fifth share in the above mentioned properties was
devolved on the petitioners as per the Hindu Succession Act and the
same was reduced in writing on 11.02.2002. Since the date of
arrangement, the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the
properties.
3. The said properties were brought into sale in
E.P.Nos.21,22,23,24,27,30 and 31 of 2011-2012, on the ground that
one Sri Venkateshwararao, who is son of Kola Narasimha Rao, was
employed with the 4th respondent-society had involved in allegations of
misappropriation of funds of the society and surcharge proceedings
were issued and present execution proceedings were initiated by the
4th respondent for realization of the funds.
4. On receiving notices in the aforementioned execution
proceedings, the petitioners have filed claim petition under Sub-rule
21(a) Rule 52 of the A.P.Cooperative Society Rues, 1964 (for short
'the Rules'). The said claim petition was closed. Though, the
petitioners made several attempts to re-open the claim petition, the
respondents have not re-opened the same. Aggrieved by the same,
the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 3rd
respondent to adjudicate the claim petition filed by the petitioners
herein.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents filed their counter and
submits that the petitioners have filed W.P.No.36891 of 2017 before
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was
disposed on 23.01.2018. In the said judgment a direction was given to
the sale officer to complete the adjudication of the claim petition in
accordance with law duly complying with all respects and till such time
the respondent-authorities shall refrain from taking any coercive steps
against the petitioners' property.
6. Accordingly, the sale officer has taken steps for completing the
adjudication of the claim petition and the matter is re-opened on
21.03.2018 and for adjudication posted on 02.04.2018 and notices
was issued to the petitioners to pay the batta expenses before
21.04.2018 to serve the notices to the respondents, as the claim
petition was filed without enclosing process memo along with postal
covers, petitioner's copy and required documents and posted for
hearing on 08.05.2018. The petitioners paid batta expenses on
07.05.2018.
7. Accordingly, the claim petition was sent to the respondents duly
put a notice dated 07.05.2018 to appear before the Assistant
Registrar/sale officer to file any objections on the claim petition and the
same notices were sent to the petitioners and date was fixed for
hearing on 26.05.2018. On that day, respondents filed their objections
and the same was communicated to the petitioners on 28.05.2018 duly
informing to offer their remarks and to adduce their evidence before
the next date of hearing and the matter was directed to be listed on
02.06.2018.
8. The petitioners have not filed any remarks on the objections and
the petitioners are directed to get ready to adduce their evidence
against the objection petitions filed by the respondents and the matter
was posted on 12.06.2018. On that day, petitioners were not
represented either in person or through counsel and petitioners are
directed to adduce their evidence along with chief affidavit by
15.06.2018, failing which further steps shall be taken. On 15.06.2018
also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Though
several opportunities have been given to the petitioners, they failed to
file remarks on the objection petitions and not adduced any evidence.
Hence, it made the respondents to dismiss the claim petition and the
claim petition was dismissed on 15.06.2018. There is a gross
negligence on the part of the petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
writ petition.
9. It is known law/trite law that an adjudication of a lis on merits is
seminal to justice dispensation system and collegiality of the
adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional
motto.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the property which fell to the share of the petitioners was brought into
sale in the above said execution proceedings, where the uncle of the
1st petitioner is not having any right or share over the property. The
said property was wrongly brought into sale. Learned counsel further
contends that for doing substantial justice to the petitioners, one more
opportunity may be given to the petitioners by directing the
respondents to re-open and dispose of the claim petition on merits.
11. Admittedly, there is negligence on the part of the petitioners.
Basing on the sole ground that an adjudication of a lis is always on
merits, as such this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to re-
open the claim petition filed by the petitioners and dispose of the same
on merits, on condition of payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) by the petitioners in favour of the 4th respondent, within
a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On receiving the said costs, the 3rd respondent is directed to
dispose of the claim petition on merits, in accordance with law, within a
period of two (02) months from the date of adjudication. If at all the
petitioners fails to deposit the amount, it shall be deemed that no order
in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed automatically
without any further orders.
12. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
Date: 18.09.2024
KBN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 22474 of 2018
Date:18.09.2024
KBN
