IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION Nos.7691. 6519, 7583. 7614,

7683, 7686, 7759 of 2016

WRIT PETITION NO: 7691 OF 2016

Between:

Reddy Appalnaidu, S/o. Reddy Sangamanaidu, Aged; 42 Years, R/o. Chenchuia Colony, Venkatapuram Pamnchayathi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production, & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its President Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No. 24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...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 a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt 11.01.2016 executed In petitioner favour

by the 3 Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India;

1. to declare the action of the Respondents 1,2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and;
1. to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 15.02.2016 vide Doc. No. 1350/2016 executed by the 2"^ Respondent and registered by the 4**^ Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered in his favor pursuant sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.NO. 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru;

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9797 OF 2016)

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 direct the respondents No. 1 & 2. not to take any coercive steps including dispossession from the land to an extent of 500 Sq. yards of land in T.S.Number 1777/1,2, 1778,- 1779 of Eluru Town pursuant to the cancellation deed dt. 15.02.2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1672 OF 2016^

Between:

The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production, & Sale Society, Society Reg.No.W.G.122, Eluru

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 in WP.No.7691/2016

AND

Reddy Appalnaidu, S/o. Reddy Sangamanaidu, Aged: 42 Years, R/o. Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Pamnchayathi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co- Operative), Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7691/2016

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 vacate the interim orders dated 10-3-2016 granted in WPMP.No. 9797 of 2016 in WP. No. 7691 of 2016.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 2100 OF 2016)

Between:

'■i

The Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND

Reddy Appalnaidu, S/o. Reddy Sangamanaidu, Aged: 42 Years, R/o. Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Pamnchayathi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production, & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its President Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No. 24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary in this petition)

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 vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP No. 9797 of 2016 in WP No. 7691 of 2016 dated. 10-03-2016 and dismiss the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. SUSHMA YAGANTI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI J SUDHEER

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

WRIT PETITION NO: 6519 OF 2016

Between:

Nadipudi Eswara Rao, S/o. Appaia Swamy, Hindu, Male, Age 42 years, D.NO. 10-7-13/1, 4*^ Division, Near Ganganamma Temple, Satyanarayana Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 1.
Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2.
The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production, & sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its president Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.NO. 24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, Opp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.
Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4.

...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 a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

1. declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt. 11.01.2011 executed in Petitioner favour by the 3^^ Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India
1. to declare the action of the Respondents 1,2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and
1. to declare that the deed of cancellation executed by the 2 Respondent and registered by the 4'^ Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered in his favor pursuant sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.No. 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru. nd

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 8298 OF 2016)

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 direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 not to take any coercive steps including dispossession from the land to an extent of 500 Sq. yards of land in T.S.Number 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 of Eluru Town pursuant to the cancellation deed dt. 15.02.2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016rWVMP. NO: 1801 OF 2016)

Between:

The Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioners/Respondents

AND

Nadipudi Eswara Rao, S/o. Appala Swamy, Hindu, Male, Age 42 years D.No. 10-7-13/1,4"^ Division, Near Ganganamma Temple, Satyanarayana Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents/Petitioners

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production, & sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its president Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No. 24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary in this petition)

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 vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP No. 8298 of 2016 in WP No. 6519 of 2016 dated: 01-03-2016 and dismiss the writ petition.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 2647 OF 2016)

Between:

■'i

The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production, & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru.

...Petitioners/Respondents

AND

Nadipudi Eswara Rao, S/o. Appala Swamy, Hindu, Male, Age 42 years D.No. 10-7-13/1,4'^ Division, Near Ganganamma Temple, Satyanarayana Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents/Respondents

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 1-3-2016 granted in WPMP.No. 8298/2016 in WP.No. 6519 of 2016.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. SUSHMA YAGANTI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI J SUDHEER

WRIT PETITION NO: 7583 OF 2016

Between:

Maggi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged: 40 Years, R/o. Door No. 5-255, Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Grampanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 1.
Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2.
The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its president Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No. 248-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.

Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents

1. declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in petitioner favour by the 3'''^ Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India;
1. to declare the action of the Respondents 1,2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and;
1. to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 15.02.2016 vide Doc. No. 1353/2016 executed by the 3'^'^ Respondent and registered by the 4*^ Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered in his favor pursuant sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.No. 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru.

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9677 OF 2016)

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 direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 not to take any coercive steps doing dispossession from the land to n extent of 500 Sq. yards of land in T.S.Number 1777/1,2, 1778', 1779 of Eluru Town-pursuant to the cancellation deed dt. 15.02.2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 1658 OF 2016)

Between:

The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru.

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 In WP.No.7583/2016

AND

1. Maggi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged: 40 Years, R/o. Door No. 5-255, Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Grampanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7583/2016

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 10-3-2016 granted in WPMP No. 9677 of 2016 IN WP No. 7583 of 2016.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 1965 OF 2016)

Between:

The Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioners/Respondents

AND

Maggi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged: 40 Years, R/o. Door No. 5-255, Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Grampanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its president Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No. 248-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.
Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4.

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary in this petition)

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 vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP.No. 9677 of 2016 in WP.No. 7583 of 2016 dated: 10-03-2016 and dismiss the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. SUSHMA YAGANTI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI J SUDHEER

WRIT PETITION NO: 7614 OF 2016

Between:

Arangi Murali Krishna S/o. Arangi Ramarao, (Died) Aged: 56 Years, D.No. 10-7-7A, Satyanarayana Peta, Gangammagudi Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.

1. Arangi Satyavathi, W/o Late Murali Krishna, Hindu, Aged 50 years, D.No. 10-7-7A, Satyanarayana Peta, Gangammagudi Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Arangi Sai Kiran, S/o Late Murali Krishna, Hindu, Male, Aged 27 years, D.No. 10-7-7A, Satyanarayana Peta, Gangammagudi Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Arandi Shyamala, W/o Sairam Mani Deepak, Hindu, Female, Age 29 years, Satyanarayana Peta, Gangammagudi Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Arangi Rama Rao, S/o"Late Murali Krishna, Hindu, Male, Aged 24 years, D.No. 10-7-7A, Satyanarayana Peta, Gangammagudi Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioners

Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record as L.Rs. of the deceased sole writ petitioner as per the Courts Order dated 27.12.2024 in IA.No.01/2020 in writ Petition and affidavit

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to, the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale, Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its President, Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No. 24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...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 * - i be pleased to Issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt. 18.01.2016 executed in my favour by the Id Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of

the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India;

1. to declare the action of the Respondents 1,2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and;
1. to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 15.02.2016 vide Doc. No. 1347/2016 executed by the rd Respondent and registered by the 4'^ Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered in his favor pursuant sale deed dt. 18.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.No. 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 300 Sq. yards at Eluru;

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016rWPMP. NO: 9712 OF 20161

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 direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 not to take any coercive steps including dispossession from the land to an extent of 300 Sq. yards of land in T.S. Number 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 of Eluru Town pursuant to the cancellation deed dt. 15.02.2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016rWVMP. NO: 1609 OF 20161

Between:

The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale, Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru.

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 in WP.No.7614/2016

AND

I- Arangi^Murali Krishna, S/o. Arangi Ramarao, Aged; 56 Years, D.No. 10- 7-7A, Satyanarayana Peta, Gangammagudi Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to, the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7614/2016

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 vacate the interim orders dated 10-3-2016 ranted in WPMP.No. 9712 of 2016 in WP.No. 7614 of 2016.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 3433 OF 2016)

Between:

The Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND

Arangi Murali Krishna, S/o. Arangi Ramarao, Aged: 56 Years, D.No. 10- 7-7A, Satyanarayana Peta, Gangammagudi Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner

1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to, the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale, Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its President, Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No. 24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary party to this petition)

Petition under Section 15TCPC 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 granted in WPMP.No.9712 o 2016 in WP.No.7614 of 2016, dt. 10-03-2016 and dismiss the WP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. SUSHMA YAGANTI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI J SUDHEER

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

WRIT PETITION NO: 7683 OF 2016

Bet\Areen:

Reddy Gowrayya S/o. Reddy Suryanarayana, R/o. D.No.4-228, Mastan Manyam Colony, Venkatapuram Panchayathi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 1.
Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2.
The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its President Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No.24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.
Joint Sub-Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4.

...Respondents

1. declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in petitioner favour respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of rd by the 3 provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India;
1. to declare the action of the Respondents 1, 2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and;
1. to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 15.02.2016 vide Doc.No.1351/2016 executed by the 2"*^ Respondent and registered by Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered his favor pursuant sale deed 'dt.' 11.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.No.1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru. th the 4

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9788 OF 2016)

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 direct the respondent No. 1 & 2 not to take any coercive steps including dispossession from the land to an extent of 500 Sq. yards of land in T.S.Number 1777/1,2, 1778;' 1779 of Eluru Town pursuant to the cancellation deed dt. 15.02.2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1616 OF 2016)

Between:

The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru.

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 in WP.No.7683/2016

AND

Reddy Gowrayya S/o. Reddy Suryanarayana, R/o. D.No.4-228, Mastan Manyam Colony, Venkatapuram Panchayathi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. 1.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2.
Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.
Joint Sub-Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4.

...Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7683/2016

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 vacate the interim orders:;dated 10-3-2016 granted in WPMP.No. 9788 of 2016 in WP. No. 7683 of 2016.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 2017 OF 2016)

Between:

The Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND

Reddy Gowrayya S/o. Reddy Suryanarayana, R/o. D.No.4-228, Mastan Manyam Colony, Venkatapuram Panchayathi, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2.
The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its President Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.No.24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.
Joint Sub-Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4.

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary in this petition)

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 vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP.No. 9788 of 2016 in WP. No. 7683 of 2016 dated: 10-03-2016 and dismiss the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. SUSHMA YAGANTI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI J SUDHEER

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

WRIT PETITION NO: 7686 OF 2016

Between:

Lanka Tirupathi, S/o. Narsimhulu, Aged; 40 Years, R/o. Door No. 5-175, Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Grampanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. /

...Petitioner

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to, the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2.
The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale, Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its president Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.NO. 248-1-14/2, Pattibad, Opp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.
Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4.

...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 a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

1. declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in petitioner favour by the 3^^ Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India;
1. to declare the action of the Respondents 1,2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and;
1. to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 15.02.2016 vide Doc. No. 1352/2016 executed by the 2"*^ Respondent and registered by the 4*^^ Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered in his favor pursuant sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.No. 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru;

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9791 OF 2016)

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 direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 not to take any coercive steps including dispossession from the land to an extent of 500 Sq. yards of land in T.S.Number 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 of Eluru Town pursuant to the cancellation deed dt. 15.02.2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1601 OF 2016)

Between:

The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale, Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru.

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 in WP.No.7686/2016

AND

1. Lanka Tirupathi, S/o. Narsimhulu, Aged: 40 Years, R/o. Door No. 5-175, Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Grampanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to, the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 & 3 in WP.No.7686/2016

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 10-3-2016 granted in WPMP No. 9791 of 2016 in WP.No. 7686 of 2016.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1964 OF 2016)

Between:

The Assistant Director^ Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND

Lanka Tirupathi, S/o. Narsimhulu, Aged: 40 Years, R/o. Door No. 5-175, Chenchula Colony, Venkatapuram Grampanchayat, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. 1.

...Respondent/Petitioner

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to, the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2.
The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production & Sale, Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its president MuthyalaSanta Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.NO. 248-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3.

Joint Sub-Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary party in this petition)

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 vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP No. 9791 of 2016 in WP No. 7686 of 2016 dated; 10-03-2016 and dismiss the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. SUSHMA YAGANTI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI J SUDHEER

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

WRIT PETITION NO: 7759 OF 2016

Between:

Reddy Venkata Ramana, S/o. Reddy Sangamanaidu, Aged: 49 Years, R/o. D.No. 5-299, Venkatapuram Panchayathi, Chenchula Colony, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner

• AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production, & Sale Society, Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru, Represented by its president Muthyala Santa .Rao, S./o. Somaiah, D.NO. 24B-1-14./2, Pattibad, Opp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondents

1. declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in favour by the 3'^'^ Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India;
1. to declare the action of the Respondents 1,2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and;
1. to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 15.02.2016 vide Doc. No. 1349/2016 executed by the 2"^ Respondent and registered by the 4'^ Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered in his favor pursuant sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.NO. 1777/1,2, 1778,1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru.

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 9870 OF 2016^

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 direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 not to take any coercive steps including dispossession from the land to an extent of 500 Sq. yards of land in T.S.Number 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 of Eluru Town pursuant to the cancellation deed dt. 15.02.2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

LA. NO: 2 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 2646 OF 2016^

Between:

The Eluru Welfare Co-Operative Production. & Sale Society Society Reg.No. W.G.122, Eluru.

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 in WP.No.7759/2016

AND

1. Reddy Venkata Ramana, S/p, Reddy Sangamanaidu, Aged: 49 Years, R/o. D.No. 5-299, Venkatapuram Panchayathi, Chenchula Colony, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
1. Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. , Represented by its president Muthyala Santa Rao, S/o. Somaiah, D.NO. 24B-1-14/2, Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken Center, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7759/2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High^Jourt may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 10.3.2016 granted in WPMP.No. 9870/2016 in WP.No. 7759 of 2016.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 1889 OF 20161

Between:

The Assistant Director. Handloom & Textiles, Eluru, West Godavari District.

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND

Ramana, S/o. Reddy Sangamanaidu, Aged: 49 Years R/o. D.No. b-299. Venkatapuram Panchayathi, Chenchula Colony Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Respondent/Petitioner

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the (Co operative), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
Rea N^wr® to? Co-Operative Production, 8 Sale Society, Society Ran '^®P''®®®"'ed by its President, Muthyala Santa CeLf Elurr^to ; r h°' Pattibad, 0pp. Ganga Chicken '^enter, Eluru, West Godavari District.
1. Joint Sub-registrar, Eluru. West Godavari District.

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary in this petition)

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 vacate the Interim orders granted in WPMP No. 9870 of 2016 in WP No. 7759 of 2016 dated; 10-03-2016 and dismiss the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

represented FSR^|"Rr;ruDTEER"®""" ^

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following common order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI

*****

WRIT PETITION Nos.7691. 6519. 7583. 7614. 7683, 7686. 7759 of 2016

W.P.No.7691 of 2016

Between:-

Reddy Appalnaidu ... Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary to the Cooperative Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Saifabad Hyderabad and 3 others. ...Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 27.12.2024

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

es/No

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals?

es/No

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No.

*HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

+ WRIT PETITION Nos.7691. 6519, 7583, 7614, 7683. 7686, 7759 of 2016

% DATE: 27.12.2024

# Between

Reddy Appalnaidu (W.P.No.7691 of 2016) ... Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary to the Cooperative Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Saifabad Hyderabad and 3 others. ...Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned Counsel & Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao.

'^Counsel for respondents Ms. Sushma Yaganti, for Respondent No.3. Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned A.G.P.

< Gist:

Head Note;

7CASES REFERRED:

1.2005 (6) see 149 2.2013(9) see 363 3. 1996 (5) sec 550 4. 2001 (6) sec 534 5. 2006 (5) sec 353 6. 2006 (5) see 353 7. 2023 see online 1022 8. (2010) 15 see 207 9. 2010 (4) ALT 34 (D.B) 10. (2016) 10 see 767.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION Nos.7691. 6519, 7583, 7614, 7683, 7686, 7759 of 2016

COMMON ORDER;

Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned Counsel and Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Ms. Sushma Yaganti, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

The facts, issues and law involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, and therefore, all the Writ Petitions have been heard and are being disposed of by this Common Order.
The Counter Affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are identical. The Principal Secretary, Cooperative (Respondent No.1) and the Joint Sub-Registrar (Respondent No.4) have not filed the Counter Affidavits in any of the Writ Petitions.
Since the facts and issues are all common, the facts as setout in W.P.No.7691 of 2016 are referred herein as the basis. The prayer made therein is as under:

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in taking steps in cancellation of sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in my favour by the 3'^ Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and rules framed there under and also violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1964 and also offends Articles 14, 21 & 300 A of constitution of India;
to declare the action of the Respondents 1, 2 & 4 in violation of principles of Natural Justice and;
to declare that the deed of cancellation dated 15.02.2016 vide Doc.No. 1350/2016 executed by the 2"^^ respondent and registered by the 4'*' Respondent as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land registered in his favor pursuant sale deed dt. 11.01.2016 executed in his favour situated in T.S.NO. 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru; and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case."

Facts as projected by the Writ Petitioners:

The facts as mentioned in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition (W.P.No.7691 of 2016) are as under: 5.

5.1. The Eluru Weavers Co-operative Production and Sale Society (Society) (Respondent No.3) (bearing Society Registration No. WG 122) was registered on 03.12.1936. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 Society has purchased the subject property on 05.03.1955 vide Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.679 of 1955 (Ex.P.3) along with several other properties with its own funds. It is stated in the Affidavit that vide Resolution No.52 dated

10.07.2015, the Society had resolved to sell or lease the properties and consequently the Respondent No.3 Society has put-up certain plots for sale to third parties. In terms of the purported Resolution No.52, the President of the Respondent No.3 Society had sold several plots to the third parties (the Writ Petitioners herein).

5.2. Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7691 of 2016 has purchased one plot by paying valid consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Respondent No.3 under registered Sale Deed dated 11.01.2016 vide Document bearing No.342 of 2016. It is stated that the President of the Respondent No.3 Society had executed the Sale Deed on the strength of the purported Resolution No.52, dated 10.07.2015. It is further submitted that on the date of registration itself, possession was delivered to the Writ Petitioner.

It is further submitted that in less than 45 days i.e 5.3. on 15.02.2016, the Respondent No.3 Society represented by the Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles (Respondent No.2) (Functional Registrar) had cancelled the Sale Deed dated 11.01.2016, vide Document bearing No.1350 of 2016 unilaterally and arbitrarily, and without notice to the Writ Petitioner.

5.4. It is contended that the unilateral execution of Cancellation Deed dated 15.02.2016, thereby canceling the earlier registered

Sale Deed dated 11.01.2016, is illegal and the same came to be challenged by the Writ Petitioner on various grounds.

Contentions of Sri N. Subba Rao. Learned Senior Counsel:

Learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 9 and Section 43 of the A.P Cooperative Societies Act. 1964 (for short 'APCS Act') are applicable to only such Societies which receives State Aid, whereas the Respondent No.3 is an unaided co-operative society, and therefore, the Respondent No.2 cannot cancel the Sale Deed unilaterally, without notice to the Vendees (Writ Petitioners herein) by executing the Cancellation Deed. 6.

6.1. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Para Nos.4 & 5 in Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 15 SCO 207].

6.2. Reliance was also placed on M. Venkata Ramana and another Vs. A.P Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad[2010 (4) ALT 34 (D.B)].

Reliance was also placed on Para Nos.46 & 47 in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2016) 10 SCC 767]. 6.3.

*>•-1

6.4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Writ Petitioners are bonafide purchasers for valid consideration and that the Writ Petitioners, as bonafide purchasers, are not concerned about whether the proper procedure has been followed by the President of the Society or not; that the prior permission was not required from Respondent No.2, because the Respondent No.3 Society does not receive the State aid; that even assuming that the permission was required from the Respondent No.2, lack of such permission is a curable defect, inasmuch as the permission can be given later, if the purchasers or the Society is able to satisfy the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 namely the Principal Secretary, Co-operative and the Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles.

It is further contended that once the registered Sale 6.5. Deed is executed, the competent Civil Court can only cancel the same. whereas the Respondent No.2, is neither the party to the registered Sale Deed nor competent to register the Cancellation Deed dated 15.02.2016; that the Respondent No.2 acted in an arbitrary and highhanded manner and also unilaterally; that the Registration Act and Rules contemplates that both parties to the document of registration can cancel the duly registered Sale Deed but not otherwise; that the scope of power/jurisdiction vested with the

Respondent No.2 is only for resolving the disputes between the members of the Society or the Society with any other Society under Section 63 of the ARCS Act; that the Respondent No.2 can take action only after conducting enquiry, whereas no enquiry was conducted by the Respondent No.2 before registering the Cancellation Deed on 15.02.2016; that the Respondent No.2 cannot present a Deed to the Registrar for cancellation of Sale Deed; and that the method adopted by the Respondent No.2 on behalf of Respondent No.3 in registering the Cancellation Deed violates the Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, 1960.

Interim Order:

The Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.6519 of 2016 (filed by Sri Nadipudi Eswara Rao - Writ Petitioner) is the first Writ Petition filed in this batch of cases. Learned Single Judge of this Court, vide Order dated 01.03.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.8298 of 2016 in W.P.No.6519 of 2016 was pleased to direct as under:

"So far as the first relief is concerned, prima facie, this Court is not inclined to grant such relief at this stage. So far as the third relief is concerned, the action of the 4'*^ respondent in accepting the cancellation document dated 11.02.2016 at the instance of the respondent without any Intimation to the petitioner, is in violation of Rule 26K(1) of the Rules made under the Registration act, 1908.

In that view of the matter, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in all respects by both the parties. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not create any third party interest by way of sale or creation of charge in any manner over

the property situated in T.S.No. 1777/1,2, 1778, 1779 to an extent of 500 Sq. yards at Eluru. Petitioner shall also not make any changes to the property in question in any manner by way of construction or otherwise."

7.1. Similar Interim Orders were passed in the subsequent Writ Petitions involved in the batch on 10.03.2016.

7.2. The following are the details of the Writ Petitioners and the extents of land purchased:

SI.<br>No	W.P.Nos.	Writ<br>Petitioner/<br>Sri	Town<br>Sy.Nos.<br>(Eluru<br>Town)	Extent	No. &<br>Doc.<br>Date<br>of<br>Registrati<br>on	Valuable<br>Conside<br>ration	Resolution<br>No.52, Dt.
01	7691/2016	Reddy<br>Appainaidu	1777/1,<br>2, 1778,<br>1779	500<br>sq.yards	342/2016,<br>11.1.2016	25<br>Lakhs	10.07.2015
02	6519/2016	Nadipudi<br>Eswara<br>Rao	-Do-	-Do-	-Do-	-Do-	-Do
03	7583/2016	Maggi<br>Srinivasa<br>Rao	-Do-	-Do-	346/2016,<br>11.1.2016	-Do-	-Do
04	7614/2016	Arangi<br>Murali<br>Krishna	-Do-	300<br>sq.yards	459/2016,<br>18.1.2016	15<br>Lakhs	-Do
05	7683/2016	Reddy<br>Gowrayya	-Do-	500<br>sq.yards	347/2016,<br>11.1.2016	25<br>Lakhs	-Do
06	7686/2016	Lanka<br>Tirupathi	-Do-	-Do-	343/2016,<br>11.1.2016	-Do-	-Do
07	7759/2016	Reddy<br>Venkata<br>Ramana	-Do-	-Do-	345/2016,<br>11.1.2016	-Do-	-Do

Averments in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3:

That the Counter Affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are pari-materia one and the same. Counter Affidavit of

Respondent No.2 has about 32 material documents. Respondent No.3 has also filed W.P.M.P.No.9797 of 2016 (vacate stay petition) in W.P.No.7691 of 2016 along with the Counter Affidavit. Similar Applications for vacating stay were also filed in the other Writ Petitions in the batch.

8.1. Respondent No.2 namely the Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles has filed a Common Counter Affidavit along with other material documents, which are very significant and would go to the root of the matter. This Court deems it appropriate to deal with the averments in the Counter Affidavit dated 07.04.2016 and several material documents along with the Counter Affidavit in extenso.

8.2. Respondent No.2 would stoutly contend in the Counter Affidavit that the Respondent No.3 is indeed an aided Society and not an unaided Society as contended by the Writ Petitioners. In Para Nos.8 & 9 of the Counter Affidavit, various details were given, which indicate that the Government is a member of the Society, with its Share Capital contributed to the Society of a sum of Rs.2,91,265/ way back in the year 1937 itself. Thereafter several amounts/grants were given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time in the form of Housing Loan, Cyclone Loan, Housing Subsidy, Marketing Development Assistance (Grant) from Government, Under

Project Package Scheme, Handloom Development Centre by the Government of India, Quality Dye Unit by Government of India and also for miscellaneous purpose by the Government of India. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had also contributed a sum of Rs.10,28,324/- under Loan Waiver Scheme; sum of Rs.6,53,191/ was spent for waiving the loan of the individual weavers loan and a sum of Rs. 1,00,558/- was spent under RRR Scheme at various points of time. It is also stated that, since the year 1989-90, the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Eluru, has sanctioned cash credit accommodation, regarding which several details were also provided in the Counter-Affidavit.

The Respondent No.3 Society comes under the purview 8.3. of Section 9-A of the ARCS Act because it has received the State aid. and therefore, it goes without saying that assets possessed by the Society (Respondent No.3) will come under the control of Functional Registrar of the Weavers Cooperative Society i.e., the Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles, Eluru, as the same (State Aid) has been credited to the account of Respondent No.3 Society from out of the funds provided by the Government.

8.4. It is stated in Para No. 10 of the Counter Affidavit that the Managing Committee consists of (9) nine Directors. The Managing

Committee is an elected body of the Society and that they elected under Rule 22 of the ARCS Act and Rules. 1964 16.10.2015 and that all the Directors together have elected one of the Directors, amongst them i.e., one Sri Matsa Santa Rao, S/o Somayya as the President of the Society {wrongly mentioned in the Cause Title as Mutyala Santa Rao, President of the Society)] that all the policy decisions have to be taken by the Managing Committee during the meeting in the shape of Resolutions and that such Resolutions should be approved by the General Body of the Society per Section 30 of the ARCS Act, and thereafter, the said proposals in the form of Resolutions shall be submitted to the Functional Registrar i.e.. Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles (Respondent No.2 herein) for his approval as per Section 9-A of the ARCS Act. Section 9-A of the ARCS Act provides that: were on as

"Where the Government extends State aid as specified under Section 43 of the Act, such Society shall not dispose of or create any charge over its property without prior approval of the Registrar and the consent of the federal Society or Financing Bank concerned as the case may be".

Whereas, in the present case, the Managing Committee elected on 16.10.2015 and it has neither passed any Resolution, 8.5. was whatsoever, to dispose of the land owned by the Society nor was any such Resolution approved by the General Body of the Society. It is also stated that even if such Resolution had been passed by the Managing Committee, the same would be of no avail unless the General Body approves/ratifies the same and thereafter the Functional Registrar (Respondent No.2) ratifies such Resolution. It is further submitted that in the instant case, none of these steps have factually taken place.

8.6. It is stated in Para No. 11 of the Counter Affidavit that the President alone has no power to put the property of the Society for sale. It is reflected from the material documents that all the members of the Managing Committee, except its President namely Sri Matsa Santa Rao, have later clarified that they have not put the property for sale by submitting statements to the Functional Registrar to this effect; and that it has been categorically stated by all the Managing Committee members, except the President, that they have never given their consent to sell the property and the Managing Committee has not passed any Resolution to this effect ever since the Managing Committee of the Society had got elected on 16.10.2015. It is also stated that the subject property is presently vested with the Respondent No.2 and it has not been delivered to any one so far. It

is also stated in Para No. 12 of the Counter Affidavit that it is mandatory to obtain permission from the Respondent No.2 before making any sale of the property owned by the Society. In Para No. 13, it is once again reiterated that when the Government of A.P is having Share Capital in such Society (Respondent No.3), all sale transactions of the property of the Society are prohibited stipulated in Section 9-A of the ARCS Act. as

8.7. it is also stated that, if the advance notice was issued before registering the Cancellation Deed, there was every danger that the President of the Society would fraudulently dispose of the entire land to the third parties, thereby permanently affecting the interest of the Society.

8.8. In Para No.13 of the Counter Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 has raised a pertinent issue that the defect of not obtaining prior permission from the Functional Registrar (Respondent No. 2) is not a curable defect because the Sale Deeds which are unauthorisedly and unilaterally executed by its President in favour of the Writ Petitioners is ab initio void, as there is neither any Resolution by the Managing Committee and approved/ratified by the General Body nor payment of any consideration in favour of Respondent No.3 Society involved in the transaction. A specific contention has been made in

the Counter Affidavit that, an alleged sale consideration of various amounts involved in the sale of plots by the President of the Society to the Writ Petitioners has not been accounted for in the account books of the Society. It is also stated in Para No. 13 that the total amount involved is about Rs.2,64,00,000/- (Two crores and sixty four lakhs). Whereas, not a single paisa has been remitted into the bank-account of the Society held with District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Eluru. For ready reference, Para No. 13 of the Counter Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder;

"13. It is further submitted that this is not a curable defect because in these sale deeds between petitioners and 3"'' respondent as there is no consideration involved in the transactions. The President of the Society who executed the sale deed is not competent to enter into any agreement in absence of the Present Managing Committee resolution and approval of the General Body of the Society for the same and prior permission from the Functional Registrar. It is bring to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court that the entire transaction is involved in huge amount of Rs.2,64,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Sixty Four Lakhs only) and no single paisa is remitted into bank account of the society held with Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd. Eluru. It is further submitted that the age of the then President of the society viz. Sri Matsa Santha Rao is 101 years. In the mean time, on 14.03.2016 Sri Matsa Santha Rao the ex-president of the said society has given written statement before the Collector & Dist. Magistrate, West Godavari, Eluru stating that the petitioner has not paid single rupee, but the petitioner promised him that 4 acres and 10 cents of land will be given and executed in favour of the Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Eluru. A registered letter has received in this office on 14.03.2016 from Sri Matsa Santha Rao stating that no single paisa has paid to him by the petitioners in all the above 7 writ petitions."

8.9. It is also stated that the Writ Petitioners have not entered into prior agreement with the Respondent No.3 Society, and therefore, the transaction of registration of Sale Deeds itself is a sham one and consequently void, illegal and unlawful. It is also once again reiterated that the Writ Petitioners as well as the Respondent No.3 Society have not obtained any 'NOG' from Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and on this count also, the registration of the above Sale Deeds is ab initio void. It is also stated that the Respondent No.2 was not a party to the Sale Deeds and that the President of the Society alone does not have the power to execute a Sale Deed without there being a prior Resolution of the Managing approval/ratification by the General Body as per procedure and without obtaining prior permission/approval from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Committee and

8.10. The cardinal contention which has been put forth in Para No. 18 of the Counter Affidavit is that the Respondent No.2 has already passed Orders on 23.02.2016 superseding the entire Managing Committee including President of the Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Limited by filing criminal cases against the erring President Sri Matsa Santa Rao under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC in I Town P.S, Eluru bearing F.I.R.No.25 of 2016 dated

12.02.2016. Para No. 18 of the Counter Affidavit is usefully extracted

hereunder:

"18. It is submitted that the 2"*^ respondent has already passed orders on 23.02.2016 superseding the entire Managing Committee including its president of the Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., W.G.No 122, Eluru and also filed a criminal case against the erring president Sri Matsa Santha Rao under Sec.408, 420 of IPC in Town Police Station, Eluru. The copy of the FIR is enclosed for kind perusal of Hon'ble court. The 2^nd respondent has also ordered an Inquiry under Section 51 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 into the affairs of the society with special reference to disposal of the site in R.S.No.1/1777, 2/1777 and 1778 in Eastern Street, Eluru of the Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd No. 122, Eluru and misappropriation of the sale amount by the President of the Society."

8.11. In Para No. 19 of the Counter Affidavit, it is stated that the person (the President - Sri Matsa Santa Rao) who had executed a Sale Deed had in fact made a statement before the Collector & District Magistrate that he had never received single paisa as consideration of the above sale and the Writ Petitioner has cheated him.

Description of the documents filed along with Counter Affidavit

The Government has filed about 32 material documents along with the Counter Affidavit. The Notice dated 29.10.2015 (at Page No.96 of the Counter Affidavit) sent by the Respondent No.2 (Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles) to the President of the Society (Sri Matsa Santa Rao) states that the said President has

effected some illegal sales approximately for an extent of 2000 square yards. The President was directed to attend the Office of Respondent No.2 along with the Original Documents relating to the Respondent No.3 Society. The President of the Society was directed to submit all the documents. In the said Notice dated 29.10.2015 there is a reference to a Report submitted by the Development Officer (Handloom and Textiles) dated 13.10.2015.

9.1. Page No.98 of the Counter Affidavit is the Reply given by the President on 04.11.2015 seeking five days time to submit the original documents. It is also stated by the President that some people have encroached into the land. Another Notice was sent by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.3 Society dated 16.11.2015 (at Page No.100), which is in the form of a Reminder seeking the President of the Society to submit the Original Documents relating to the immovable properties. For this Reminder from Respondent No.2, the President of the Society had addressed a letter dated 08.12.2015 (at Page No. 102 of the Counter Affidavit) categorically stating that he has received the letter from the District Collector to the effect that the members of the Society were requesting for construction of community hall and to send proposals for the same.

9.2. The President of the Society has again addressed another letter on 02.01.2016 (at Page No. 105 of the Counter Affidavit) to the Respondent No.2. In this letter, the President of the Society had sought permission from Respondent No.2 for selling-away the land of the Society for raising funds and had 'categorically' stated that without permission from Respondent No.2, selling of any property of the Society does not arise (at Page No. 107 of the Counter-Affidavit).

9.3. Respondent No.2 has issued 'Show Cause Notice' to the President of the Society on 30.01.2016 (Page No.110 of the Counter Affidavit), by which time, it has come to the knowledge of the Respondent No.2 that the President of the Society has illegally sold away the immovable property of the Respondent No.3 Society to third parties (Writ Petitioners herein). Therefore, Respondent No.2 had directed the President of the Society to explain the reasons as to why appropriate legal action should not be taken against him for unauthorized sale of immovable property belonging to the Respondent No.3 Society.

9.4. The members of the Managing Committee, except the President-Sri Matsa Santa Rao, have unanimously addressed a letter to the Respondent No.2 on 20.02.2016 (at Page No.113 of the

Counter Affidavit), requesting the Respondent No.2 to take over the management of the Respondent No.3 Society by suspending the existing Managing Committee in view of various irregularities committed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao who was officiating in the capacity of President of the Society. Thereafter, on the direction of the District Collector, the District Cooperative Officer, West Godavari, Eluru, has submitted a Report dated 17.02.2016 after conducting enquiry. Certain irregularities on the part of the President of the Society were mentioned in the said Report dated 17.02.2016.

The same is usefully extracted hereunder:

"In view of the above, the following irregularities are observed.

That Sri Matcha Santha Rao, President of Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Eluru has intentionally sold out the property to an extent of 3825.645Sq.Y. without obtaining the permission of the concerned Commissioner as required under section 9-A of the ARCS Acti 964,

That the sale proceeds are not accounted for to the books of accounts of the society.
That though the Assistant Director, Handlooms, Eluru informed about the issue to the District Registrar, Eluru, without taking any caution they have simply registered the sale documents executed by Sri Matcha Santha Rao.
That Sri Matcha Santha Rao, President of Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Eluru has himself admitted that by utilizing the sale proceeds he made an agreement to purchase Ac.4.50 cents of land in Seetapuram.

It is submitted that the Assistant Director, Handlooms, Eluru has taken every step to prevent the transaction before occurring the tranaction, Sri Matcha Santha Rao, President of Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Eluru with a malafide intention mislead the Department and acted as per his whims and

fancies. After wards, he ordered an Inquiry under section 51 of the APC3 Act, 19G4 and also filed a criminal complaint against Sii Matcha Santha Rao, President of Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Eluru in Two town police station, Eluru

In view of the above.

A) The Assistant Director, Handlooms, Eluru may be instructed to direct the Inquiry Officer to submit the Inquiry Report at an early date so as to initiate actions against the concerned as per law.

B The District Registrar, Eluru may be instructed to take necessary steps to cancel the registrations of sale deeds executed by Sri Matcha Santha Rao, President of Eluru Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd., Eturu."

Replv/Rejoinder filed by the Writ Petitioners

The Writ Petitioners have filed Reply Affidavit (Rejoinder

Affidavit) on 14.02.2020 denying all the averments in the Counter

Affidavits. Relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder:

"7. I further humbly submit that

The respondents are dis-entitled to cancel the deed executed by the then society President on receipt of the valid consideration. The genuineness or otherwise of sale deed, the identity and nature of the land in dispute, whether the alienations are liable to be set aside and the sale deeds are liable to cancellation, whether constructions made by any of the parties etc., are all matters which are outside the scope of the Sec.61 of Cooperative Societies Act, as they do not lead to the business of the society. When once the sale deeds are executed and registered, title in the property covered by sale deed gets legally transferred in favour of the vendees and even the vendors cannot unilaterally cancel the same. Even the transactions is found to be illegal beyond the authority of the society necessary steps has to be taken to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, which provides cancellation of the document and decrees following provisions of law of limitation. Without considering settled principles of law the 3"" respondent unilaterally cancelled the sale deed executed by th'e'then President of the society after

receipt of valid consideration. It is not my business to look after whether sale consideration was deposited in the society bank account or not they have to take appropriate action against the then president with regard to non deposit of the sale consideration. Under the guise of non deposit of sale consideration, cancellation of my sale deed is illegal, irregular, arbitrary under settle principles of law.

I further humbly submit that with regard to the rules referred under Income Tax Act In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3, has nothing to do with the case as the entire sale consideration is fair, the question of obtaining permission from the authority under act the restriction is applicable only in respect of notified areas which was notified U/s.269 of the Act, property purchased by me is not situated in such notified area. As such the question of applicability of Income Tax Act does not arise in this case.
I further humbly submit that I have paid total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- with my hard earned money and I am in possession and enjoyment of the property since from the date of purchase. The society has to approach competent civil court in the event of any grievances with regard to sale deed. Without considering the same execution of the cancellation deed is illegal, irregular, arbitrary."

Issues:

From the above averments, the following issues fall for consideration ;

i) Whether the Respondent No.3 - The Eluru Weavers Co-operative Production & Sale Society has received the State Aid?, If yes, whether the Resolutions passed by the Managing Committee are required to be approved/ratified firstly by the General Body, and thereafter, be approved by the Functional Registrar (Respondent No.2 herein)?

Whether the Managing Committee has passed a resolution bearing Resolution No.52 on 10.07.2015 authorising the President of the Society to sell the immovable property owned by the Respondent No.3 Society? If yes, whether such Resolution was approved/ratified by the General Body? ii)
ui) Whether the valid sale consideration, while effecting the purported sale transactions (in the form of Registered Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016), had been deposited into the Respondent No.3 Society's bank account or not?
Whether Sri Matsa Santa Rao, the then President of the Society has individually committed fraud? iv)
Whether the rightful owner i.e., the Society, acting through the Management Committee, has authorized any one, particularly Sri Matsa Santa Rao, to sell the subject plots and to execute Registered Sale Deeds in favour of the Writ Petitioners? V)
Whether the Sale Deeds executed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao in favour of the Writ Petitioners vide Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 are legally valid? If not, whether the Sale Deeds executed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao are voidable or void ab initio'? ui)

viii) To what relief?

Analysis:

Facts and contentions of the rival parties have been elaborately noted by this Court in the paragraphs hereinabove.

The following are the contentions of the Writ Petitioners:

That Sri Matsa Santa Rao, who was the President of the Respondent No.3 Society, was authorized by a purported Resolution No.52, dated 10.07.2015 to sell the properties of the Society and in pursuance of the said Resolution, the President of the Society had executed various Sale Deeds on 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 (Ex.P.2); I.
That the Writ Petitioners are the bonafide purchasers for a valuable sale consideration; II.
That once the Registered Sale Deeds III. are executed only a Competent Civil Court can cancel the same and the Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles (Respondent No.2) who is neither the party to the registered Sale Deeds nor having any statutory competence could have cancelled the Sale Deeds by

way of registered Cancellation Deeds dated 15.02.2016 (Ex.P.1);

That the Registration Act and its Rules contemplate that both the parties to the registered Sale Deeds can alone cancel the duly registered document jointly but not otherwise: IV.

That the Petitioners have placed reliance on various Judgments to contend that the unilateral cancellation of a Sale Deed is impermissible; V.
That Section 9 and Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the Act) are applicable only to Societies that receive State Aid and that the Respondent No.3 Society does not fall under the category of Aided-Society inasmuch as the said Society does not receive State aid; VI.
That the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2 is only to resolve the disputes between the Members of the Society, or between the Members of the Society and the Management of the Society and or the disputes arising between the Respondent No.3 Society with any other Society as contemplated under Section 63 of the Act; VII.
That the Respondent No.2 can take action only after conducting enquiry; and, that the impugned actions of the said Respondent No.2 in registering the Cancellation Deeds dated 15.02.2016 (Ex.P.1) for cancelling the Registered Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 VIII.

and 18.01.2016 (Ex.P.2) are perse illegal and arbitrary; and,

That the Respondent No.2 cannot present Cancellation Deeds to the Joint Sub-Registrar (Respondent No.4) for cancellation of the duly registered Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 (Ex.P.2). IX.

The Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have filed separate Counter Affidavits which are in verbatim the same. As on the date of the registration of the Cancellation Deeds (Ex.P.1), the Respondent No.2 was the 'In-charge Person' of the Management inasmuch the Managing Committee stood suspended vide Proceeding dated 23.02.2016. At the outset, it has to be noted that ail the contentions of the Writ Petitioners have been stoutly rebutted by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 along with facts and figures supported by as many as 32 material documents. The following are the issues, which were raised by the Writ Petitioners, but stoutly rebutted by the Respondents: as

(i) The claim made by the Writ Petitioners that on the strength of the Resolution No.52 of the Managing Committee, dated 10.07.2015, the President of the Society, had executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of the Writ Petitioners was rebutted by the Respondents stating that no such Resolution was passed. The Respondents would place

reliance on the unanimous Letter dated 20.02.2016 (Page 113 of the Counter-Affidavit) written by all the Members of the Managing Committee of the Society, to suspend the Managing Committee and take the control of the management (vide Letter dated 20.02.2016) and to initiate legal action against Sri Matsa Santa Rao and to cancel his membership.

(ii) The claim made by the Writ Petitioners that the provisions of Section 9 and Section 43 of the Act are inapplicable because the Respondent No.3 Society does not receive the State Aid had been rebutted by the Respondents (paras 8 & 9 of the Counter Affidavit along with material papers). It is stated by the Official Respondents that right from the inception of the Society, the Government is a Member of the Society and it has contributed funds through share capital of amount of Rs.2,91,265/- in the year 1975. In the said paragraph of the Counter Affidavit, the successive contributions from 1937 to the Financial Year 2015-16 have been mentioned which indicates that there is consistent flow of Government aid to Respondent No.3 Society. This goes to show that State-Aid is given to the Cooperative Society and therefore, prior permission of the Functional Registrar (in this case, the Assistant Director of Handloom and Textiles Respondent No.2) is an indispensible statutory mandate;
(iii) For the contention of the Writ Petitioners that they have purchased the land of the Society under valid consideration, it has been stoutly rebutted by the

Respondents in para 13 of their Counter Affidavit to the effect that not a single paisa had been credited to the account of the Society and that the remittance has not been recorded in the account books of Respondent No.3 Society. Though the Petitioners have filed Reply/Rejoinder, no proof has been filed evidencing the payment of valid sale consideration to rebut the contentions of the Official Respondents in this regard;

(iv) Regarding the contention of the Petitioners that they are the bonafide purchasers for a valuable consideration, the Respondents have rebutted the same by stating that the President was never authorized by the Managing Committee to sell away the properties of the Respondent No.3 Society and also that the Petitioners could neither establish the passing of the alleged Resolution No.52 nor had shown even an iota of evidence that a valuable consideration has been passed on from them to the Respondent No.3 Society and therefore, the alleged sale made by Sri Matsa Santa Rao in favour of the Writ Petitioners is non-est in the eye of law and therefore, no Notice is required to be issued either by the Respondent No.4 (Joint Sub-Registrar) or by the Functional Registrar (Respondent No.2). No effective reply was given by the Petitioners in their Reply/Rejoinder to the opposition of the Official Respondents in this regard.

This apart, the material documents placed on record by either of the parties would indicate that the Managing Committee of the 14.

Respondent No.3 has not passed any Resolution, more particularly the alleged Resolution No.52, on 10.07.2015. The Respondent No.2 namely the Functional Registrar has lodged a Criminal Complaint against Sri Matsa Santa Rao on 30.01.2016 (at page 196 of the Counter Affidavit) complaining various irregularities committed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao. In pursuance of the said Complaint, an FIR was registered on 12.02.2016 bearing FIR No.25/2016 (at page 194 of the Counter Affidavit).

The material documents filed along with the Counter Affidavit would also indicate that the Members of the Managing Comrhittee, as well as the Respondent No.2 have suspected that the President of the Society has been making certain illegal deals so as to affect the interest of the Society. The correspondence would indicate that the Development Officer (Handloom and Textiles) had submitted a Report on 13.10.2015 as regards the misdeeds of Sri Matsa Shanta Rao as President of Respondent No.3 Society. 15.

On the strength of that Report dated 13.10.2015, the Respondent No.2 has issued Notice to the President of the Society indicating that attempts being made by him to illegally alienate about 2,000 square yards of the property belonging to Respondent No.3 16.

Society and some of them are encroaching into the land owned by the Society.

The Respondent No.2 had directed the President to submit an appropriate explanation and to attend the enquiry scheduled 04.11.2015 at 10.30 A.M along with all the original documents relating to the properties owned by the Respondent No.3 Society (at page 96 of the Counter Affidavit). The President of the Society responded to the direction of Respondent No.2 through his correspondence dated 04.11.2015 stating that he would submit all the original title deeds within five days (at page 98 of the Counter Affidavit). on

On 16.11.2015, the Respondent No.2 has once again addressed a Letter to the President reminding him about the 18. commitment undertaken by him through his Letter dated 04.11.2015 that within five days, he would submit the original documents (at page 100 of the Counter Affidavit).

The Respondent No.2 has also addressed another Letter on 08.12.2015 to the President of the Respondent No.3 Society indicating that some private parties are trying to occupy 2,000 square yards belonging to the Society and that there is a proposal for constructing community hall for the benefit of the Members of the Society in the extent of 2,000 square yards of the Society's land. The President was directed to submit the details of the properties of the Society, Minutes Book and the original Title Deeds pertaining to an extent of 2,000 square yards. The President was also directed to send the proposals for construction of community hall for the benefit of the Members of the Society (at page 102 of the Counter Affidavit). 20. The President of the Society had addressed a handwritten Letter on 02.01.2016 proposing to sell away 2,000 square yards for the benefit of the Members of the Society. It is stated that the said site was not getting any income for the Society and that by selling of 2,000 square yards, the Society can buy about 4 acres of land in any other location and he sought permission from Respondent No.2. /t is categorically stated in this Letter that without seeking permission from Respondent No. 2. no sale shall be effected bv him (at page 105 of the Counter Affidavit). This Letter of the President of Respondent No. 3 Society assumes significance because the President of the Society himself had admitted that without consent of Respondent No.2. neither him nor the Society can sell away the property. While so saving in his Letter dated 02.01.2016, the President, in fact, executed Sale Deeds in favour of the Writ

Petitioners herein on 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016. In the said Letter of the President dated 02.01,2016, the President had categorically requested the Respondent No.2 not to cause anxiety to him bv listening to the rumors that the President is illegally selling awav the properties of the Society.

Since by this time, the Respondent No.2 had categorically come to know that the President of the Society illegally alienated the land by the Respondent No.3 Society by way of registered Sale Deeds on 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016, Respondent No.2 issued a Show Cause Notice to the President as to why action should nbt be initiated against him in accordance with law (at page 110 of the Counter Affidavit). 21.

The entire correspondence starting from 29.10.2015 right up to 30.01.2016 would indicate that the Official Respondents already conscious of the fact that the President of the Society is determined on committing fraud and mischief. Even thereafter, vide Letter dated 20.02.2016, the Members of the Managing Committee, other than the President, have unanimously and jointly addressed a Letter to Respondent No.2 to suspend the Managing Committee and take control of the management of the Society (at page 113 of the were

Counter Affidavit) and initiate suitable action against Sri Matsa Santa Rao after cancelling his membership.

From the above admitted facts, it appears to the Court that there was no Resolution, much less Resolution No.52, passed by the Managing Committee. Therefore, in the absence of any such Resolution, it cannot be said that the entire Management Committee has effected sales by registering various Sale Deeds. The correspondence between Sri Matsa Santa Rao, the President of the Society and the Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles (Functional Registrar) (Respondent No.2) would clearly indicate that the President of the Society has also admitted to the fact that there is a statutory obligation on the Society to seek consent from Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for selling-away the immovable properties of the Society. It is also an admitted fact that neither the Respondent No.1 nor Respondent No.2 had given any consent or authorization or 'no objection' for effecting sales of immovable properties of the Society to third-parties.
It is also an admitted fact that the Society has not received even a single paisa in the form of sale consideration. The Writ Petitioners have not been able to prove even by producing an iota of evidence or by producing a scrap^f paper to indicate that the sale

consideration had been passed on to the Respondent No.3 Society. The subsequent events would also indicate that an FIR has been registered against the President of the Society for his individual acts of fraud. The Preliminary Report submitted by the Development Officer (HNT) dated 13.10.2015 and the Final Report submitted by the District Cooperative Officer to the District Collector dated 17.02.2016 would clinchingly prove that Sri Matsa Santa Rao has individually committed fraud on the Society as well as the Official Respondents. It is clinchingly establish that the President of the Society alone has committed the illegal acts and had unilaterally and without authorization and contrary to the statute had registered Sale Deeds. Therefore, this Court holds that the Sale Deeds executed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao, purportedly Officiating as President of the Society, without there being any Resolution by the Managing Committee or its approval either by the General Body or the Government, are held to be ab initio void inasmuch as an individual, without any authority of law, executed the Sale Deeds. Even the so called sale transactions through the Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 are not backed by any valid sale consideration. It is a settled law that fraud vitiates everything.

Law on Fraud:

In State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. /s. T. Suryachandra

Rao : 2005 6 SCC 149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the subject of fraud and its legal effect. The relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder:

"8. By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill-will towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. [See Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. [1963 Supp (2) SCR 585 : AIR 1963 SC 1572 at pp. 1576-77 para 14 (1963) 2 Cri LJ 434] and Indian Bankyj. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 550] ].

A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu y/. Jagannath [{1994) 1 SCC 1] .)
"Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation

is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319] .)

"Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Law Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines "|raud" as an act committed

by a party to a contract with the intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of a deliberate active role of the representator about a fact, which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with the knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry V. Pee/( [(1886-90) All ER Rep 1 ; (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes "fraud" was described thus ; (All ER p. 22 B-C)

"[Fjraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (/) knowingly, or (//) without belief in its truth, or {Hi) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false."

But "fraud" in public law is not the same as "fraud" in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish "fraud" in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in administrative law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secy, of State for Home Deptt. [(1983) 1 All ER 765 : 1984 AC 74 : (1982) 1 WLR 948 (FIL)] that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation to statutory law. "Fraud" in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute,

if a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope.' Present-day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation C((

to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which power can be exercised. But disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. 'In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain.' In public law the duty is t to deceive." non- (See Shrisht Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] SCC p. 554, para 20.) Dhawan v. Shaw

The above extract would clearly indicate that a collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio.

In Devendra Kumar Vs. Uttaranchal and Ors.: 2013 9 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para Nos. 18 & 25 of the said

Judgment, has held as under;

The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v M Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 ; (1996) 32 ATC 94 : AIR 1996 SC 686] this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society V. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [{1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766] observed as under: {M. Bhaskaran case [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 ; 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 ; (1996) 32 ATC 94 • AIR 1996 SC 686], SCC p. 104, para 6) or

If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.

More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct ot a party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus— a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union of India /. Major General Madan Lai Yadav [(1996) 4 see 127 : 1996 See (eh) 592 AIR 1996 Se 1340] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 See 224 : 2000 see (eh) 1056] .) Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing {jus ex injuria non oritur)."

In the case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) 28. PVT.

LTD.: 1996 5 SCO 550, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para Nos.20

to 23 as under;

"20. By filing letter No. 2775 of 26-8-1991 along with the review petition and contending that the other letter, namely, letter No. 2776 of the even date, was never written or issued by the respondent, the appellant, in fact, raised the plea before the Commission that its judgment dated 16-11-1993, which was based on letter No. 2776, was obtained by the respondent by practising fraud not only on the appellant but on the Commission too as letter No. 2776 dated 26-8-1991 was forged by thp respondent for the purpose of this case. This plea could not have been legally ignored by the Commission which needs to be reminded that the authorities, be they constitutional, statutory or administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud as fraud and justice never dwell together {Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). It has been repeatedly said that fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man {Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).

In Smith v. East Elbe Rural Distt. Council f 1956 AC 736 : (1956) 1 All ER 855 (1956) 2 VVLR 888] the House of Lords held that the effect of fraud would normally be to vitiate any act or order. In another case, Lazarus Estates Ltd. V. Seas/ey [(1956) 1 QB 702 (1956) 1 All ER 341 (1956) 2 WLR 502] (QB at p. 712), Denning, L.J. said:

"No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the court's business.
Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that court. Similarly, where the court is misled by a party or the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the court has the inherent power to recall its order. (See: Benoy Krishna Mukerjeev. Mohanlal Goenka [AIR 1950 Cal 287] ; Gajanand Sha v. Dayanand Thakur [A\R 1943 Pat 127 \ KrishnakumarM. Jawand Singh [A\R 1947 Nag 236 : ILR 1947 Nag 190] , Devendra Nath Sarkarv. Ram Rachpal Singh [ILR (1926) 1 Luck 341 ; AIR 1926 Oudh 315] Saiyed Mohd. Raza v. Ram Saroop [ILR (1929) 4 Luck 562 AIR 1929 Oudh 385 (FB)] ; Bankey Behari Lalv. Abdul Rahman [ILR (1932) 7 Luck 350 : AIR 1932 Oudh 63] ; Lekshml Amma Chacki Amma v. Mammen ILR 21 Pat 838]

Mammen [^955 Ker LT 459] .) The court has also the inherent power to set aside a sale brought about by fraud practised upon the court {Ishwar Mahton v. Sitaram Kumar [A\R 1954 Pat 450] ) or to set aside the order recording compromise obtained by fraud. {Bindeshwari Pd. Chaudhary \j. Debendra Pd. Singh [A\R 1958 Pat 618 : 1958 BUR 651] ; Tara Bai/. V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao [AIR 1985 Kant 270 ILR 1985 Kant 2930] .)"

The facts involved in the case on hand would clinchingly establish that one Sri Matsa Santa Rao, purportedly Officiating as the President of the Society, has done the unilateral act of registration of Sale Deeds in favour of the Writ Petitioners. As indicated earlier that there was neither the Resolution passed by the Managing Committee authorizing the President to execute Sale Deeds nor has the said President adhered to the indispensible statutory mandate by seeking permission from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 inasmuch as the Society is undoubtedly an Aided Society. Even the General Body of the Respondent No.3 Society has not approved/ratified any resolution. When once it is established that a person, without any authority of law, has stealthily executed a Sale Deed; such transactions and the documents/instruments involved in such transactions would become void ab initio in the eye of law as if the said sale was not a legally sustainable and valid sale at all. This is, therefore, a case of res ipsa loquitur (things speaks to themselves). It is also a settled law that the doctrine of res ipsa

loquitur is a rule of evidence when things are so glaring and apparent on the face of record, it does not require adducing of any further evidence.

instruments which are ab initio void need not be cancelled:

Insofar as the 'character' of the Sale Deed as an instrument which is executed by way of a sham transaction, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v Jai Prakash University and others: (2001) 6 SCO 534) in paragraph No.22 has held as under;

Thus the expressions "void and voidable have been the subject-matter of consideration on innumerable occasions bv courts. The expression "void" has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for avoiding the same no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. The other type of void act, e.g., may be transaction against a minor without being represented by a next friend. Such a transaction is a good transaction against the whole world. So far as the minor is concerned, if he decides to avoid the same and succeeds in avoiding it by taking recourse to appropriate proceeding the transaction becomes void from the very beginning. Another type of void act may be which is not a nullity

but for avoiding the same a declaration has to be made. Voidable act is that which is a good act unless avoided, e.g., if a suit is filed fora declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated, it is voidable as the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given, a transaction becomes void from the very beginning. There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is avoided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it. In cases where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same. It cannot be treated to be void but would be obviously voidable. ''

The above extract would indicate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has drawn the distinction between 'void' transactions and 'voidable' transactions and that the expression void has several facets. It is stated that in respect of certain classes of transactions which are ab initio void, such transactions can simply be avoided and no declaration is necessary because the law does not take any notice of such instruments and they can be disregarded in collateral proceedings or otherwise. 31.

Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that when an instrument is void ab initio, a decree for setting 32.

aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non est in the eye of law inasmuch as it would be a nullity. In Prem Singh and others v Birbal and others: ((2006) 5 SCC 353), the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that in a case of sham transaction, which is not executed by a lawful owner by following the legal procedure, the 'character' of the very document itself is void. The relevant portions of the Judgment at paragraph Nos. 16 and 22 are usefully extracted herein:

When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity.
In Ningawwa v. Byrappa [(1968) 2 SCR 797 ; AIR 1968 SC 956] this Court held that the fraudulent misrepresentation as regards character of a document is void but fraudulent misrepresentation as regards contents of a document is voidable stating: (SCR p. 801 C-D)

''The legal position will be different if there is a fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character. The authorities make a clear distinction misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. With reference to the between fraudulent

former, it has been held that the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable. "

In that case, a fraud i/i/as found to have been played and it was held that as the suit w/as instituted within a few days after the appellant therein came to know of the fraud practised on her, the same was void. It was, however, held: (SCR p. 803 B-E)

"Article 91 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit to set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for (and no other provision of the Act applies to the circumstances of the case) shall be subject to a three years' limitation which begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside are known to him. In the present case, the trial court has found, 4 upon examination of the evidence, that at the very time of the execution of the gift deed. Ext. 45 the appellant knew that her husband prevailed upon her to convey Surveys Plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village to him by undue influence. The finding of the trial court is based upon the admission of the appellant herself in the course of her evidence. In view of this finding of the trial court it is manifest that the suit of the appellant Is barred under Article 91 of the Limitation Act so far as Plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village are concerned. ".

f

The Hon'ble Apex Court, as recently as in the year 2023, while dealing with an identical situation, held that in respect of a 33. sham transaction, cancellation of Sale Deed would not be necessary. In Ramathal and others v K. Rajamani (Dead) through LRs and another : (2023 SCC Online SC 1022) in paragraph No.21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under;

" In the present case, the defendant respondent had taken a plea which the High Court had given due consideration that the plaintiff appellant had not sought any relief either for declaration of the Power of Attorney as void as also the cancellation of the sale deeds. Law is well settled that where it is alleged that the document of sale is void, then no cancellation would be necessary and such a document can be ignored under law. Cancellation of a sale deed would be necessary only where it is alleged to be voidable on facts. The present case the fraudulent misrepresentation not only to the contents of the document but also to the character of the document. Thus, the reasoning given by the High Court contrary to the settled legal position cannot be sustained". was

Since the Writ Petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the Judgments cited hereinabove, this Court deems it necessary to deal with the facts and the ratio in each of the precedents.

34 1 In Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 15 SCO 207], the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the effect of Cancellation Deed in a situation where there is no controversy with regard to the legitimacy on the part of the Vendor when he had executed the initial 'Sale Deed' as such. In the said case, the original Sale Deed was legitimately registered and during the process of registration of the Sale Deed, Vendor's right to transfer title to the Vendee was never doubted. Therefore, this precedent is of no avail to the Writ Petitioners.

34.2 The Writ Petitioners have placed reliance on Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in M. Venkata Ramana and another Vs. A.P Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad [2010 (4) ALT 34 (D.B)]. The learned Senior Counsel relied on Para Nos.26 & 27, 51 to 53. A close scrutiny of this Judgment would make it clear that the facts in this case are not identical to the facts in the present case. In the cited Judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench had categorically held:

"when once, the sale deeds are executed and registered, title in the property covered by the sale deeds gets legally transferred in favour of the vendees and even the vendor cannot unilaterally cancel the same. In case, the transaction is found to be illegal and beyond the authority of the society, necessary recourse has to be taken to the provisions of Specific Relief Act, which provides for cancellation of documents and decrees".

34.3 Therefore, the facts in M. Venkata Ramana's case, do not support the case of the Writ Petitioners. In the present case, the person who has no authority under law had deceptively and stealthily registered the Sale Deeds ostensibly projecting himself to be having the legal authority to transfer the title from the Society to the Vendees. The President of Respondent No.3 Society would get the legal authority to register a Sale Deed on behalf of the Society only when the procedures contemplated under law are followed and thereby the necessary approvals are given by the : a) Managing Committee; b) Ratified by the General Body; and c) Permission granted by the Government and Functional Registrar. Since the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove that all such Resolutions, approvals and sanctions have been granted to Sri Matsa Santa Rao, he as such does not have the authority to register the Sale Deeds on behalf of the Society in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein.

34.4 The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2016) 10 SCO 767. This Court has sifted through the facts of the case (stated in Para Nos.4 & 5 of the Judgment), and the analysis and the ratio therein. The facts involved in this case are not identical to the facts in the present case. The facts in Satya Pal Anand's case would indicate that the Society has sold a plot to its member and legitimately executed a registered document in favour of the member. The member has violated some of the conditions, which are indispensible, that led to cancellation of the plot by the Society therein. Thereafter, the Society has once again registered the very same plot in favour of another member. The crucial fact here is that the Society, at the time of registration of a plot to its member at the first instance, not only had valid title but also had the legitimate authority to effect sale by transfer, and therefore, had validly transferred such title in favour of its member. Since this Court has already taken the view that in the present case there is no valid flow of title inasmuch as all the transactions were sham because Sri Matsa Santa Rao did not have the legitimacy to either sell the land or transfer its title on behalf of the Society, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on Satya Pal's case would be of no avail.

34.5 This apart, the facts on record would also indicate that the Writ Petitioners have grossly failed to even establish elementary fact that the sale consideration has passed from the vendees to the Society. Despite the fact that the Official Respondents have categorically stated in para 19 of the Counter Affidavit that not a single paisa of

sale consideration has been passed on to the Respondent No.3 Society, the Writ Petitioners, though had filed Re-joinders, had not been able to satisfactorily rebutt this contention that the valid consideration has not been passed to the Respondent No.3 Society. In the above facts, this Court would also not hesitate to hold that the entire transactions of sale made by Sri Matsa Santa Rao and purchased by the Writ Petitioners are completely sham in nature. At the first instance, the vendor had no authorization to effect sale. At the second instance, the vendees did not prove that the valid sale consideration has been passed on to the Society.

Conclusion:

In the above premise, the Issues are answered in the following manner;-

ISSUE No.1: Whether the Respondent No.3 - The Eluru Weavers Co-operative Production & Sale Society has received the State Aid?, If yes, whether the Resolutions passed by the Managing Committee are required to be approved/ratified firstly by the General Body, and thereafter, be approved by the Functional Registrar (Respondent No.2 herein)? 35.

As indicated earlier, the Eluru Weavers Cooperative Production and Sale Society, since it has received state aid, the said Society is held as Aided Society and therefore, it requires the 'prior permission' of the Competent Authority, (Functional Registrar in the

present case) for selling the properties belonging to the Society. It is also necessary for the Managing Committee to pass a Resolution to this effect that it has become expedient to sell the properties of the Society for the purpose of raising funds or for any other valid reason and refer the said Resolution to the Competent Authority for its approval after getting the approval/ratification from the General Body. In the absence of a Resolution and or approval by the General Body and the Competent Authority, any sale effected would be void ab initio. It is pertinent to mention herein that Sri Matsa Santa Rao has also conceded to this position that a prior sanction is required from the Government, which had been noted by this Court in the preceding paragraphs.

ISSUE No.2: Whether the Managing Committee has passed a resolution bearing Resolution No.52 on 10.07.2015 authorising the President of the Society to sell the immovable property owned by the Respondent No.3 Society? If yes, whether such Resolution was approved/ratified by the General Body ? 36.

The Letter addressed by all the Members of the Managing Committee, other than the President- Sri Matsa Santa Rao, to the Functional Registrar stating that Sri Matsa Santa Rao, purportedly acting as the President of the Society, is selling away the lands belonging to the Society and the said Managing Committee

Members had urged the Respondent No.2 to take over the management of the Society. This Letter does not refer to any earlier Resolution, much less, Resolution No. 52. This apart, no such Resolution No. 52 had been produced before this Court by the Writ Petitioners too. In this view of the matter, this Court holds that Resolution No. 52, which is purportedly passed on 10.07.2015 is non-existent. Therefore, it has to be deemed that the Managing Committee of the Society had never resolved to sell the properties of the Society nor has authorized its President to execute the Sale Deeds. When such Resolution does not exist, the question of the General Body approving/ratifying does not arise as such.

ISSUE No.3: Whether the valid sale consideration, while effecting the purported sale transactions (in the form of Registered Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016), had been deposited into the Respondent No.3 Society's bank account or not? 37.

A specific plea has been raised by the Official Respondent No.2 at paragraph No. 19 of its Counter Affidavit that no sale consideration has been passed on to the Society and therefore, the entire transaction is a sham one. This Court has already noted in the preceding paragraphs that the Writ Petitioners, despite the fact that they have filed their Rejoinder, have not addressed this issue with any documentary proof to evidence that valid consideration which is

50 %

paid by the Writ Petitioners had been passed on to the Society by depositing the said amount into the Bank Account of the Society. The Writ Petitioners, having miserably failed in producing even a scrap of paper evidencing the factum of payment of sale consideration in favour of the Society, this Court holds that the entire transaction between Sri Matsa Santa Rao and the Writ Petitioners is a sham one.

ISSUE No.4; Whether Sri Matsa Santa Rao, the then President of the Society has individually committed fraud? 38.

Having considered the relevant facts, this Court would not hesitate to hold that Sri Matsa Santa Rao, who was the then President of the Society, has individually committed fraud not only on the Society but also on the vendees, who are the Writ Petitioners herein.

ISSUE No.5: Whether the rightful owner i.e., the Society, acting through the Management Committee, has authorized any one, particularly Sri Matsa Santa Rao, to sell the subject plots and to execute Registered Sale Deeds in favour of the Writ Petitioners? 39.

Admittedly, the rightful owner of the land is the Society. The said Society having receiving aid from the Government would fall under the category of Aided Society and therefore, is duty-bound to follow the statutory requirement'-ef obtaining prior permission from

the Competent Authority, namely the Functional Registrar for selling the properties of the Society. As indicated earlier, proposal for sale of the properties of the Society shall be made by way of Resolution with the participation of the Members of the Managing Committee, thereafter the General Body of the Society should approve/ratify the same and then refer the same to the Respondent No.2 for seeking permission for selling the assets of the Society. As a last step in the mandatory procedure, such Resolution ought to have been approved by the Respondent No.1 & Respondent No.2. Only then the President would get the authority to effect sale of the property of the Society by executing the Sale Deeds. In the instance case, none of the procedures have been followed. The Letter addressed by the Members of the Managing Committee to the Respondent No.2 dated 20.02.2016 (at page no.113 of the Counter Affidavit) would add strength to the fact that the Managing Committee of the Society has neither thought about nor deliberated regarding the selling away of the immovable properties of the Society and that the entire set of falsities have been concocted by Sri Matsa Santa Rao that eventually led to the execution of the Sale Deeds clandestinely which are ex facie sham by their very nature and 'character'.

ISSUE No.6: Whether the Sale Deeds executed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao in favour of the Writ Petitioners vide Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 are legally valid? If not, whether the Sale Deeds executed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao are voidable or void ab initio? 40.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court would not hesitate to hold that the Sale Deeds executed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao are illegal by their very nature and character and therefore, the said Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 are ab initio void.

ISSUE No.7: Whether there is any requirement in law to execute a Cancellation Deed to annul the purported Sale Deeds, which are sham by their very character?

It is settled law that neither a Civil Court is required to declare the said documents as void nor is there any requirement to execute the Cancellation Deeds to annul the sham transactions. The Judgments referred to hereinabove, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court would categorically state that the Sale Deeds which are by their very character itself are void ab initio and hence need not be cancelled. However, the present set of facts would indicate that the respondent No.2 has registered Cancellation Deeds on 15.02.2016. Though there is no such requirement, perhaps the Respondent No.2 has executed such Cancellation Deeds on 15.02.2016 only to make it explicitly clear that the Sale Deeds executed by Sri Matsa Santa Rao would not have any effect in the eye of law. At the most, it can

only be said that as a matter of 'abundant caution', the Respondent No.2 had executed the Cancellation Deeds on 15.02.2016 and in order to prevent further sales by the Writ Petitioners herein. There could also be another reason that even in the Registrar's Record, the factum of cancellation of the Sale Deeds dated 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 would be recorded which would definitely prevent further fraud.

Under such circumstances, this Court would hold that the Respondent No.2, who is the Functional Registrar, has the authority to register the Cancellation Deeds executed on 15.02.2016.

43. ISSUE No.8: To what relief?

(i) The Writ Petitioners have not been able to produce any evidence to establish the fact that the Managing Committee has passed a Resolution bearing No.52 on 10.07.2015. Even assuming for a moment that a Resolution has been passed by the Managing Committee on 10.07.2015, a copy of it is not available with the Writ Petitioners. Extensive correspondence which is placed by the Official Respondent No.2 along with the Counter Affidavit would indicate that such alleged Resolution has not seen the light of the day and even if it exists, it has never been approved/ratified by the General Body. Since this Court has taken a view that the Respondent No.3

Society is an aided one (receiving Government-Aid), the alleged Resolution purported to have been made by the Managing Committee, is certainly required to be approved by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as per the statutory procedure, after having been approved/ratified by the General Body. While the Writ Petitioners would canvass that the President of the Society Sri Matsa Santa Rao has executed the Sale Deeds on 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 behalf of the Society, the documentary evidence placed by Respondent No.2 along with the Counter Affidavit would completely defy the contentions of the Writ Petitioners. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the President of the Society has in fact agreed to the legal requirement that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have to give a prior consent and a prior approval with regard to any proposal for selling the immovable property of the Society correspondence (which is on record), the President of the Society has even stated that he would approach the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for seeking their permission/approval for selling the immovable property of the Society. While the President of the Society, by his correspondence, had made the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to believe that the Society will certainly seek permission from Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for sale of the immovable property in the month of on In the said

December, 2015, he had clandestinely and without providing any information to Respondent Nos.1 & 2, much less seeking permission, had surreptitiously and clandestinely sold away the immovable property of the Society thereby, defrauding not only the Society but also the Government.

(ii) This apart, despite a strong opposition made by the Official Respondents with regard to transfer of sale consideration from the Writ Petitioners to the Society, even in the Re-joinder filed by the Writ Petitioners, they have not provided any plausible answer were able to produce even a scrap of paper to indicate that the sale consideration was in fact remitted to the Society's account. nor

Another pertinent fact, which can never be ignored, is that the Respondent No.2 as well as the members of the Managing Committee have been diligent all throughout. This fact is clearly reflected from the correspondence between the Respondent No.2 and Sri Matsa Santa Rao on one hand and between Respondent No.2 and the members of the Managing Committee on the other Even the Reports submitted by the District Co-operative Officer dated 17.02.2016 and the lodging of the FIR under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC bearing F.I.R.No.25 of 2016 dated 12.02.2016 would clearly indicate that the due diligence was exercised by (iii) hand.

everyone. However, the President Sri Matsa Santa Rao had executed the sham Sale Deeds stealthily and by hoodwinking every one, thereby causing colossal loss to the Respondent No.3 Society.

(iv) In the present case, the Writ Petitioners have not been able to prove that Resolution No.52 was passed by the Managing Committee. The Writ Petitioners have not been able to prove that such Resolution, has at all been approved by the General Body. The Writ Petitioners have not been able to prove that the The Writ Respondent No.3 Society is an Un-aided Society. Petitioners have not been able to prove that the Respondent No.3 has not received any aid from the Government. The Writ Petitioners have not been able to prove that even single paisa has been remitted to the account of the Respondent No.3 Society in the form of Sale Consideration (although, in the registered Sale Deeds, it is stated that the Writ Petitioners paid in cash). On the contrary, the President of the Respondent No.3 Society, in his correspondence has categorically agreed to the legal position that no sale can be effected by him without seeking permission from the Government and the Functional Registrar. Taking these facts in to consideration, this Court has categorically held that entire transaction has been fraudulently, stealthily and ostensibly committed by the President in

his individual capacity by registering the Sale Deeds with an intent to defraud the Society and the Government. Therefore, the Registration of Sale Deeds done by Sri Matsa Santa Rao is ex-facie illegal, and therefore, this Court would have no hesitation to hold that there is no valid transfer of title from Respondent No.3 Society to the Writ Petitioners herein.

(v) The precedents which are relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners are of no avail, for the simple reason that, the facts as well as the prepositions of law not identical to the Judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel. There must be valid transfer of title through the registered Sale Deed because the Vendors therein in fact possessed valid title and there was no controversy with regard to the passing of sale consideration from the Vendee to the Vendor. are

(vi) It is pertinent to mention herein that the age of Sri Masta Santa Rao is shown in the Sale Deeds dated: 11.01.2016 and 18.01.2016 (Ex.P.2), as being 101 years (with Aadhar No. 3632 0876 3222) as on the date of their executions.

(vii) In the above premise, no relief can be granted to the Writ Petitioners except giving liberty to them to proceed individually against Sri Matsa Santa Rao in accordance with law for recovery of sale consideration from him, if at all the Writ Petitioners have any proof/evidence to at least establish the transfer of sale consideration from the Writ Petitioners to Sri Matsa Santa Rao in his individual capacity. This Court would not hesitate to hold that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled to initiate any proceedings against the Society (Respondent No.3) for recovery of the alleged sale consideration because of the reason that the Writ Petitioners have failed to prove the transfer of 'sale consideration' to the Society (Respondent No.3). For these reasons, no relief can be granted to the Writ Petitioners,

(viii) Even reliance placed by Writ Petitioners on Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, 1960 would not help the Writ Petitioners in any manner.

\ \ /

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court would hold that the impugned Cancellation Deeds dated 15.02.2016 shall not be set aside and the present Writ Petitions are devoid of any merit besides being an abuse of process. 44.

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to the Writ Petitioners are given liberty to initiate 45. costs. However, appropriate proceedings against Sri Matsa Santa Rao in his individual capacity before the Civil Court, if so advised, for recovery

of the payments allegedly made by A them in the form of sale consideration to Sri Matsa Santa Rao (in the form mentioned in the Sale Deeds dated 11.01. Ex.P.2) subject to the of 'cash' as 2016 and 18.01.2016 production of legally admissible to the statutory period of evidence/proof and trial without reference limitation if the suit is filed within a period of six (6) months from the date of uploading of this judgment on the website of this Court

Interlocutory Applications, if 46. any, stand closed in terms of this order.

SD/. K SRINIVASA RAJU assistantregJXar

//TRUE COPY//

gwn officer SE

RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD One fair copy to the Hon' ble Sri Justice GANNAMANENi (for His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

To,

1. The Under Secretary, Union of India Company Affairs, New Delhi. Ministry of Law, Justice and
3 9
'j- y L.K. Copies
:i ?i'
Pradesh. [Oi?n ^ ^ Commerce, High Court of Andhra 7. Two CCS to GP for Registration Pradesh. [OUT]
1. Two CCS to GP for Revenue & Stamps, High Court of Andhra
1. One CC to Sri M Devi Prasad, Alc^lfjop'ljcr"
lO.Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED;27/12/2024

COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION Nos.7691, 6519, 7583, 7614, 7683, 7686, 7759 of 2016

DISMISSING ALL THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS

Lanka Tirupathi vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its Principal Secretary To

AI Summary

Order Issued After Hearing

Original Order Copy

Order Text

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION Nos.7691. 6519, 7583. 7614,

7683, 7686, 7759 of 2016

WRIT PETITION NO: 7691 OF 2016

Between:

...Petitioner

AND

...Respondents

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9797 OF 2016)

I.A. NO: <sup>1</sup> OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1672 OF 2016^

Between:

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 in WP.No.7691/2016

AND

...Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7691/2016

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 2100 OF 2016)

Between:

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND

...Respondent/Petitioner

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S. SUSHMA YAGANTI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED FOR SRI <sup>J</sup> SUDHEER

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

WRIT PETITION NO: 6519 OF 2016

Between:

...Petitioner

AND

...Respondents

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 8298 OF 2016)

I.A. NO: <sup>1</sup> OF 2016rWVMP. NO: 1801 OF 2016)

Between:

...Petitioners/Respondents

AND

...Respondents/Petitioners

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary in this petition)

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 2647 OF 2016)

Between:

...Petitioners/Respondents

AND

...Respondents/Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO: 7583 OF 2016

AND

...Respondents

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9677 OF 2016)

I.A. NO: <sup>1</sup> OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 1658 OF 2016)

Between:

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 In WP.No.7583/2016

AND

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7583/2016

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 1965 OF 2016)

Between:

AND

...Respondent/Petitioner

...Respondents/Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary in this petition)

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI N SUBBA RAO, SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI M DEVI PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO: 7614 OF 2016

Between:

AND

...Respondents

I.A. NO: <sup>3</sup> OF 2016rWPMP. NO: 9712 OF 20161

I.A. NO: <sup>1</sup> OF 2016rWVMP. NO: 1609 OF 20161

Between:

AND

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 & 4 in WP.No.7614/2016

I.A. NO: <sup>2</sup> OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 3433 OF 2016)

Between:

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND

...Respondent/Petitioner

...Respondents

(Petitioner No.4 is not necessary party to this petition)