Dismissed

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Nov 2024WP/6875/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged auction proceedings under cooperative societies rules, claiming absolute ownership of disputed property. Court directed submission of detailed claim petition for investigation and prohibited sale until matter is resolved on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit detailed claim petition within four weeks; respondents prohibited from proceeding with sale pending resolution.

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6875 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi, W/o. Subba Rao, Age 60 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o D.No.5-119/1, Attili Village and Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶12

The District Cooperative Officer, Bhimavaram, West^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶13

The District Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram Division, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

¶14

The Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Penumantra Village, Manteru Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶15

The Sale Officer, Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Tadepalligudem Bazar, Eluru, Eluru District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of MANDAMUS declare the action of the respondents issuing Form 9 Notice to conduct auction of petitioners property admeasuring 152.78 Sq. Yds in Sy.No.810/1A of Attili Grama Panchayat, Attili Mandal, West

¶18

Godavari District along with the house RCC Building without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without following mandatory procedure under law is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to set aside all the proceedings against the petitioner's property in the interest of Justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of auction proceedings pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶22

Between:

¶23

The Sale Officer, Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Tadepalligudem Bazar, Eluru, Eluru District.

¶24

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.5

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶27

The District Cooperative Officer, Bhimavaram, West Godavari^District. 3. The District Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram Division, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

¶28

The Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Penumantra Village, Manteru Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶29

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi, W/o. Subba Rao, Age 60 Years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o D.No.5-119/1, Attili Village and Mandal,^WestGodavari District.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Rule 12(11) (3) Writ Proceeding rules,1977^readwith under 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated^{intheaffidavitfiled} in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for filing counter affidavit in the writ petition No. 6875^of2023.

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶33

Between:

¶34

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶35

The District Cooperative Officer, Bhimavaram, West^{GodavariDistrict.} 3. The District Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram^Division, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi, W/o. Subba Rao, Age 60 Years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o D.No.5-119/1, Attili Village and Mandal,^WestGodavari District.

¶39

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶40

The Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Penumantra Village, Manteru^Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶41

The Sale Officer, Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Tadepalligudem Bazar, Eluru, Eluru District.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶43

(R2 & R3 are not necessary parties in this petition)

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 20-03-2023 in WP no. 6875 of 2023 and dismiss the WP No. 6875 of 2023.

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file reply^{affidavitintheabovewrit} petition No. 6875/2023 on the file of this Hon'ble^Court in the interest of justice.

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. P. V. N. V. SASTRI

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ; GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : SRI SURAGANI^VIJAYAKUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER

¶51

<br>

¶52

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶53

WRIT PETITION No. 6875 of 2023

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s;

¶56

“to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declare the action of the respondents issuing Form-9 Notice to conduct auction of petitioner’s property admeasuring 152.78 Sq. Yds in Sy.No.810/1A of Attili Grama Panchayat, Attili Mandal,^West Godavari District along with the house RCC Building^without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without following mandatory procedure under law is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents^to set aside all the proceedings against the petitioner’s property in the interest of Justice and pass such other^order or orders....

¶57

The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition^isthatshe is owner and possessor of house property admeasuring 152.78 Sq. Yds in Sy.No.810/1A of Attili Grama Panchayat,^AttiliMandal West Godavari District along with the house RCC Building^andshe stated that though the property purchased jointly by^herand her husband Sri T V Subbarao, who worked as Brancyh Manager in

¶58

'’V.

¶59

District Cooperative Central Bank, Attili Branch, later her husband transferred his title in the property in her favour in the year 2015 which is prior to issuing Surcharge Order. The petitioner submitted that in the year 2018 the respondent authorities conducted audit and found some irregularities in the bank. Later the authorities passed Surcharge Order under Sec.60 (1) of AP Cooperative Societies Act 1964 against her husband Sri T.V. Subbarao and others.

¶60

And the authorities have informed that they are going to conduct auction in respect of the property referred above , on 20.03.2023.

¶61

The present Writ Petition is filed assailing Form-9 notice issued by Deputy Registrar on Special Duty, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited on the ground that the property^mentionedin Form-9 is belongs to the petitioner and she is the absolute owner. In this regard it is appropriate to extract Sub-Rule 21 (a) of Rule 52 of A.P. Co-Operative Societies Rules 1964 (for short rules):

¶62

(21) (a) Where any claims is preferred or any objection is made to the attachment of any property under this rule on the ground that such property is^not liable to such attachment, the officer shall investigate the claim or objection and dispose it of on the merits:

% r.

Provided that no such investigation shall be made when the sale officer considers that the claim or objection is frivolous,

¶67

(b) Where the property to which the claim or objection relates has been advertised for sale, the sale officer may postpone the sale pending the investigation or the claim or objection,

¶68

(c) Where a claim or an objection is preferred that party against whom an order is made may institute a suit within six months from the date of the order to establish the right which he claims to the propertyⁱⁿ dispute, but subject to the result of such suit, if^any, the order shall be conclusive.

¶69

Under Rule 52 Sub-Rule (21)(a) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, the provision typically outlines the^processfor adjudicating claims related to disputes within the cooperative society framework. It generally includes details about^howclaims should be submitted, the timeline for adjudication, and the authority responsible for resolving such claims. This ensures a structured approach to addressing grievances and maintaining fairness in the cooperative system. to

¶70

The petitioner is claiming property that is subject execution of sale proceedings arising from the surcharge proceedings against one T.V. Subba Rao. This property^belongsto

¶71

¶72

the petitioner, as she has purchased the property. This is a disputed fact that requires evidence and must be decided^bythe authority under the Co-operative Societies Act under^theaforesaid rule. 7. The petitioner is directed to submit a detailed claim^petition to the concerned authority within the four-week timeframe.^The authority will then review the case, allowing both^{thepetitionerand} the affected party to present their arguments before^makinga decision. The respondents are prohibited from proceeding^withthe sale until the matter is resolved. This ensures that^dueprocessis followed and that both parties have a fair chance to^beheard.

¶73

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There^shallbe no order as to costs.

¶74

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending,^ifany,

¶75

shall stand closed.

¶76

SD/-P. VINOD KUMAR //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANTaREGISTRAR

¶77

SECTION OFFICER

¶78

To,

¶79

The Principle Secretary, Cooperative Department,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶80

The District Cooperative Officer, Bhimavaram, West^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶81

The District Registrar of Cooperative Societies,^{BhimavaramDivision,} Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

¶82

The Chief Executive Officer, Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Penumantra Village, Manteru Mandal,^West Godavari District.

¶83

.<1 ■

¶84

The Sale Officer, Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Tadepalligudem Bazar, Eluru, Eluru District.

¶85

One CC to Sri M. P. V. N. V. Sastri, Advocate [OPUC]

¶86

Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶87

One CC to Sri Suragni Vijaya Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)

¶88

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/11/2024

ORDER

m:
a 0 9 DEC 202^ Co
^ . Current Section ^

¶94

WP.No.6875 of 2023

¶95

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chava Anasuya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Karthikeya Traders Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Rayan Corp Science, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Syamala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sai Ganesh Eicher Tractors Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Katari Seshaveni Vs The State of Andhra pradesh