Disposed

Lalam Varahala Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026WP/8268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a farmer, challenged the auction notice for his agricultural land measuring Ac.1.41 cents in R.S.No.720/1 of Pydipala Village, alleging non-compliance with statutory rules and violation of natural justice. He had paid Rs.60,000/- towards outstanding dues and sought time to repay the balance Rs.1,03,000/-. The court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner time to clear the outstanding dues in four installments on or before 31.03.2027, directing the 5th respondent to release original title deeds and pass books upon full payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time to pay outstanding dues of Rs.1,03,000/- in four installments by 31.03.2027; upon payment, 5th respondent to release original title deeds and pass books.

Lalam Varahala Babu Vs The State of Andhra… — Cooperative Societies | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

APHC010161832025

[3457]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 8268/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

LALAM VARAHALA BABU, S/O YERRAPATMDU, AGED 53 YEARS, DOOR NO.7-75, MAKAVARAPLEM VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR / OFFICER ON SPEEIAL DUTY, THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, REP.BY ITS SENIOR INSPECTOR / SALE OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶18

THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MAKAVARPALEM, MAKAVARPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPLLI DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of Respondent no.4 in issuing Notice by its Senior Inspector / Sale Officer, for Auction of the Sale of the Agricultural Landed property of the Petitioner i.e., an extent of Ac. 1.4lets in RS.No.720/1, of Pydipala Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District, on 28-03-2025 in the premises of Respondent no.5 without following the Rules and without issuing any Notice as contemplated under Rule 52 (ll)(e) of The Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1964, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unlawful, in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art.21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, by consequently directing the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to proceed with the Auction of the Petitioners property i.e., an extent of Ac.l.41cts in RS.No.720/1, of Pydipala Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District, 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 may be pleased to Grant Interim Orders of Stay of all further Proceedings of the Auction to be held on 28-03-2025 as per the Public Notice of Auction vide E.P.No.884/2021-22 issued by the Senior Inspector / Sale Officer on behalf of Respondent no.4 i.e., an qxtent of Ac. 1.4lets in RS.No.720/1, of Pydipala Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District, pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.P NANILU NAIDU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR COOPERATION

¶29

2.SRINIVAS BASAVA

¶30

¶31

The Court made the following order:

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing a notice of sale for auctioning the agricultural land of the petitioner, admeasuring Ac.1.41 cents in R.S.No.720/1 of Pydipala Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District.

¶33

It is submitted that the petitioner has paid a total amount of Rs.60,000/- towards repayment of the part of the outstanding dues. This Court, considering the submissions, had suspended the proposed auction. It is submitted that the petitioner is due payable an amount of Rs.1,03,000/which the petitioner is inclined to pay and seeks indulgence to this Court by granting adequate time for repaying.

¶34

It is further submitted that the petitioner is a farmer and had no other source of livelihood apart from the agricultural land. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent does not dispute the payments made by the petitioner, however, submits that the 5^th respondent is in the service of the farmers and the petitioner shall have to clear the outstanding dues expeditiously.

¶35

Considering the submissions, time is granted to the petitioner to clear the outstanding dues in four installments, payable on or before 31.03.2027. Upon payment of the outstanding dues, the 5^th respondent shall release the original title deeds and pass books pertaining to the agricultural lands of the petitioner.

¶36

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no

¶38

order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶40

closed.

¶41

____________________

¶42

17.09.2026 RJS/GCD

¶43

¶44

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO: 8268/2025

¶46

Dt: 17.09.2026

¶47

RJS/GCD

Lalam Varahala Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalam Varahala Babu 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