Mareedu Hareesh v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2026WP/22192/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 73 Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964; attachment of third-party property; bona fide purchaser; prohibitory properties list; writ of mandamus; Eluru District; DCCB Limited; misappropriation of society funds; determination reserved to civil suit; attachment set aside; W.P. 22192 of 2025; Justice Nyapathy Vijay; decided 04.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned attachment order set aside to the extent of the petitioner's property; no order as to costs. ¶¶49

Mareedu Hareesh Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned attachment order set aside to the extent of the petitioner's property; no order as to costs.

¶¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in attaching the petitioner's property without considering his ownership, without verifying the latest EC, without following the procedure laid down under the AP Cooperative Act, 1964, and furnishing its details to the registration authorities for inclusion in the prohibitory properties list despite lack of jurisdiction, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. +2 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the Schedule property, having purchased it under a registered sale deed.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

Section 73 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 does not contemplate attachment of properties in the hands of third parties, as apparent on a reading of the provision.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

The impugned order does not speak of the property having been purchased with misappropriated funds; even otherwise, such aspects must be decided in a civil suit, as the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act do not empower the authorities to determine them.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.22192 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Nyapathy Vijay J, decided 04.02.2026): The petitioner, a bona fide purchaser of Plot No.29 (183.33 Sq. Yards, Sy.No.413-6A, 1A1, T. Narasapuram Village and Mandal, Eluru District) under registered sale deed Document No.8906/2022 dated 27.10.2022, challenged the attachment of his property by Respondent No.4 (Deputy Registrar / Officer on Special Duty, DCCB Limited, Eluru) under Section 73 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (Rc.No.1/2023 dated 04.01.2023) and its inclusion in the prohibitory properties list; the attachment followed an enquiry into T. Narasapuram Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, whose CEO was the vendor's husband. Held: Section 73 of the Act does not contemplate attachment of properties in the hands of third parties; whether the property was purchased with misappropriated society funds is a matter to be decided in a civil suit, the Act not empowering the authorities to determine such aspects. Writ petition allowed; impugned attachment order set aside to the extent of the petitioner's property; no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010431092025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

[3460]

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 22192/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

MAREEDU HAREESH, S/O VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO, AGE 31 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O T.NARASAPURAM VILLAGE MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU. 4.

¶16

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR / OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY DCCB LIMITED, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU.

¶17

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR STAMPS REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU.

¶18

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF DCCB, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELUR

¶19

THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHINTHALAPUDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

¶22

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 topleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents attaching the property of the petitioner admeasuring 183.33 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.413-6A, 1A1 of T.Narasapuram Village Mandal, Eluru District without considering the ownership of the petitioner, without verifying latest EC and without following the procedure laid down under AP Cooperative Act, 1964 and the rules made there under, furnishing the details of petitioners property to the registration authorities to include petitioners property along with other properties in prohibitory properties list inspite of lack of jurisdiction is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to lift the attachment in respect of petitioners property and delete petitioners property from prohibitory properties list, in the interest of justice and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 pleased to direct the respondents not to conduct auction in respect of petitioner’s property admeasuring 183.33 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.413-6A, 1A1 of T.Narasapuram Village & Mandal, Eluru District, pending disposal of the present writ petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.M P V N V SASTRI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.SURAGANI VIJAYA KUMAR

¶29

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

¶30

3.GP FOR COOPERATION

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶34

W.P.No.22192 of 2025

¶35

ORDER :

¶36

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order of attachment dated 04.01.2023 vide Rc.No.1/2023 passed by Respondent No.4, in attaching the property of the Petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶37

The facts leading to this case are as follows:-

¶38

The Petitioner is the owner of a house site admeasuring 183.33 Sq. Yards bearing Plot No.29 in Sy.No.413-6A, 1A1 of T. Narasapuram Village and Mandal, Eluru District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.8906/2022, dated 27.10.2022 from his Vendor by name Smt. Tadikelapudi Siva Madhavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Vendor’ ).

¶39

The Vendor of the Petitioner had in-turn purchased the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.45 Cents under registered sale deed bearing Document No.3503/2020 dated 17.08.2020. After purchase, the Vendor of the Petitioner converted the same as nonagricultural land and obtained an approved layout plan from Regional Deputy Director, Rajahmundry vide C.No.1166/2020 . The

¶40

¶41

Petitioner as mentioned above, purchased one of the plots in the approved layout.

¶42

While so, an enquiry was initiated vis-à-vis the functioning of

¶43

T. Narasapuram Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’ ), wherein the husband of the Vendor of the Petitioner by name Sri Tadikelapudi Kishore Kumar was working as CEO. Pursuant to the enquiry, it is stated that the husband of the Vendor of the Petitioner was found at fault with regard to funds of the society, and, consequent thereto, the impugned attachment order was passed by the authorities in exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ). Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶44

Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 would submit that the impugned order need not be faulted as the purchase was in the name of the wife of the defaulter, i.e., Sri Tadikelapudi Siva Madhavi with the misappropriated funds and therefore, the impugned order need not be faulted. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 further submitted that Section 73 of the Act enables the authority to attach the properties, even of family members, for realizing the misappropriated funds of the Society.

¶45

¶46

Heard the respective counsel.

¶47

The Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the Schedule property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed as mentioned above. Section 73 of the Act does not contemplate attachment of properties in the hands of 3^rd parties as apparent on a reading of the provision.

¶48

Though, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 submitted that the property was purchased in the name of the wife with the misappropriated funds, the impugned order does not speak of the same. Even otherwise, these are issues that have to be decided in a civil suit as the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act do not empower the authorities to determine such aspects.

¶49