THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14661 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to conduct auction of lands admeasuring Acs.7.94 cents; Ac.0.41 cents; Acs.3.23 cents; Ac.0.18 cents; Ac.0.14 cents; Acs.2.62 cents covered by R.S.Nos.232/1, 233/1-A, 253/2, 253/5, 253/4 and 256 situated at Unikili Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District, and also land admeasuring Acs.13.12½ cents covered by R.S.No.120 situated at Rudrapaka Village, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. The fourth respondent herein is the owner of aforesaid lands and former President of the third respondent – Sri Ram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Unikili Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District. On the ground that he has misappropriated the amounts of the third respondent society, recovery proceedings were initiated against him and to execute the order passed in recovery proceedings, the second respondent - Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Officer on Special Duty, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, has taken steps under Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, to recover the amount. In the execution proceedings, the second respondent has notified for sale of the fourth respondent’s lands, which are in two items, item No.1 consists of lands admeasuring Acs.14.52 cents covered by R.S.Nos.232/1, 233/1-A, 253/2, 253/5, 253/4 and 256 situated at Unikili Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District and item No.2 consists of land admeasuring Acs.13.12½ cents covered by R.S.No.120 of Rudrapaka Village, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in notifying the aforesaid lands for auction during pendency of I.A.No.506 of 2006 in O.S.No.57 of 2002 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, is illegal. Before the auction was notified, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.57 of 2002 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, seeking a decree declaring that the second respondent has to notify tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff, who is the petitioner herein, in pursuance of the lease agreement entered by him with the fourth respondent and to pass consequential injunction orders restraining auction of the aforesaid lands. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is stated that I.A.No.506 of 2006 was filed for restoration of O.S.No.57 of 2002. On the ground that the second respondent is taking steps during pendency of said I.A., the petitioner filed this writ petition. Primarily, it is the case of the petitioner that there exists a lease in regard to the aforesaid lands in his favour. In view of the same, he cannot be dispossessed pursuant to the auction conducted by the respondents in execution of recovery order passed against the fourth respondent, who is the owner of the aforesaid lands. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by second respondent. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that there was a lease to an extent of Acs.9.81 cents out of Acs.14.52 cents of the land situated in Unikili Village only, in favour of the petitioner, for a period of two and half years i.e. from 01.08.1995 to 30.01.1998 and it is expired by 30.01.1998. The second respondent has disputed the lease in favour of the petitioner with regard to the land in item No.2. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a suit seeking declaratory relief against the second respondent, it is to be noticed that pursuant to the order passed against the fourth respondent to recover the amount, recovery proceedings are initiated by following the procedure under Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. The orders, decisions or awards passed under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made there under, are nothing to do with the proceedings of the civil Courts. In view of the same, when the order of recovery is passed against the fourth respondent, under the guise of seeking declaration, the petitioner cannot seek any relief to prevent enforcement of such order. In any event, it is to be noticed that as averred in the counter- affidavit, there is no proof of lease with regard to the land covered by Rudrapaka Village and even with regard to lease for the lands covered by item No.1, there was a lease only to an extent of Acs.9.81 cents of land and the lease expired in 1998 itself. When the specific period was mentioned in the lease deed and after expiry of the lease, under the guise of continuing the lease, the petitioner cannot question the same. As much as it is not in dispute that the fourth respondent is the owner and possessor of the lands, which are notified for auction, when the steps are being taken to execute the recovery order passed against the fourth respondent, the petitioner, who is not having any right presently, cannot question the same and seek the relief as prayed for. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the amounts already deposited pursuant to the interim orders of this Court shall be adjusted in the loan account of the fourth respondent. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th FEBRUARY, 2011. kvni