Writ petition challenging Form-9 notice for auction of house property. Court directed petitioner to submit claim petition within four weeks. Auction proceeded only after claim is resolved.
Petitioner directed to submit claim petition within four weeks. Sale proceedings prohibited until matter is resolved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7385 OF 2023
Between:
Katari Seshaveni, W/o. Chidambara Venkat Rama Krishna Rao, Age 62 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. D.No.2-48, Garatayyagari Street, Near Ramalayam, Pedakapavaram, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 petitioner's house property bearing Door No.25/1, in an extent of 194 Sq.yds in R.S.No.109 of Aredu Village, Undi
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances 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.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. P. V. N. V. SASTRI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : SRI SURAGANIVIJAYA KUMAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No, 7385 of 2023
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
“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 house property bearing Door No.2-5/1, in an extent of 194 Sq. yards in R.S.No.109 of Aredu Village,Undi Mandal, West Godavari District without issuing anynoticeto 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 theinterest of Justice and pass such other order or orders....
- The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petitionis that she is absolute owner and possessor of house property bearingDoor No.2-5/1 in an extent of 194 Sq. yards in R.C. No.109ofAredu Village, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District and she got the property from her brother Sri K.V. Suryanarayana, by way of registered gift deed in view of family understanding vide gift deed bearing document No.2038/2015 registered in the office of SRO
2
Ganapavaram. And the authorities have informed that they are going to conduct auction in respect of the propertyreferredabove on 24.03.2023. On enquiry, the petitioner came to knowthatthe authorities have issued Form-9 notice to her brother Sri K.V. Suryanarayana, who is Supervisor in District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru, and she also came to know that the Surcharge order was issued vide order dated 18.12.2018 alleging that her brother along with other employees played fraud and they are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,66,56,000/-. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing Form-9 notice issued by the 6*^ respondent i.e. Deputy Registrar on Special Duty, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, on the groundthatthe property mentioned in Form-9 notice 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-OperativeSocieties Rules 1964 (for short rules):
(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 isnot liable to such attachment, the officer shall investigate the claim or objection and dispose it of on the merits:
3
%%
Provided that no such investigation shall be made when the sale officer considers that the claim or objection is frivolous. (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.
(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.
- Under Rule 52 Sub-Rule (21)(a) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, the provision typically outlines the process for adjudicating claims related to disputes within the cooperative society framework. It generally includes details abouthowclaims 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.
- The petitioner is claiming property that is subject to execution proceedings arising from the surcharge proceedings against one M. Prabhakar Reddy. This property belongs to the
4
pl
petitioner, as it fell to her share in a partition.Thisisadisputedfact that requires evidence and must be decided by the authorityunder the Co-operative Societies Act under the aforesaidrule.
- 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 boththepetitioner and the affected party to present their arguments before making a decision. The respondents are prohibited from proceedingwiththe sale until the matter is resolved. This ensures that due process is followed and that both parties have a fair chance tobeheard.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Thereshallbe no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SDI- K. KASIRAO ACHARi //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SEC FFICER
To,
Cnr
» 1 \
\ 4
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.7385 of 2023
7 0 9 DEC 2029 |
^ Curreni Secuon
%4£CSPATCV^:^
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should accept the petitioner's claim of ownership amidst a surcharge enforcement proceeding.
Whether the auction proceedings initiated without notice to the petitioner must be stayed pending claim adjudication.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Katari Seshaveni
State of Andhra Pradesh
District Responsible Officer
District Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Ltd
Deputy Registrar
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
