IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.1156 OF 2009 BETWEEN: The Nallajerla Large Seized Cooperative Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary. …. Appellant AND Sri G.Ravi Kumar S/o. Narasimha Murthy And others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.1156 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant – respondent No.2 against the order dated 07-07-2009 in W.P. No.9915 of 2009 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent No.1 herein questioning the action of the appellant and respondent No.2 herein in taking steps to register the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.8.00 in survey No.162, Dubacherla Village, Nallajerla Mandal, W.G.District without considering the objections dated 04-01-2009 filed by him during the pendency of the appeal in O.A.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. 3. The case of the petitioner in W.P. is that during an enquiry conducted into the affairs of the appellant-society, the 1st respondent- writ petitioner was found responsible for misappropriation of funds of the Society and he was ultimately made liable to pay Rs.9,95,884/- with subsequent interest vide award dated 30-04-2008 passed in Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2005-2006 by respondent No.2 – The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Eluru, W.G.District. Questioning the said award, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal in O.A.No.32 of 2008 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada and during the pendency of the said appeal, it appears, the 2nd respondent sold the property of the appellant by way of public auction for realization of the misappropriated amount, which was questioned by him in the appeal and also confirmed the award without considering the objections filed by the 1st respondent. Challenging the said action of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent filed M.A.No.2 of 2009 in the said appeal. However, pending the said application, as the 2nd respondent was taking steps to register the property in favour of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent filed the aforementioned writ petition before this Court. 4. While issuing notice before admission on 06-05-2009, a learned single judge of this Court directed the respondents not to register the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8.00 in Survey No.162 of Dubacherla Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. 5. Subsequently, the appellant society filed a vacate application seeking vacation of the said interim order together with a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner. 6. The learned single judge while taking into consideration the fact that the appeal filed by the 1st respondent was pending before the 2nd respondent, through the order impugned in this appeal, has directed the 1st respondent to move the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the said appeal by filing appropriate petition. The learned single judge further observed in the said order that the interim orders passed on 06-05-2009 shall be continued till the disposal of the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant-society filed the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that when the Tribunal has not passed any interim order on the stay application filed by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Registrar is bound to register the land and the learned single judge while disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the appeal filed by him, was not justified in directing continuance of the interim order which was granted on 06-05-2009. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order of the learned single judge be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has submitted that the lands, which were mortgaged to the appellant-Society, have already been sold in the auction and the sale proceeds to an extent of about Rs.30.00 lakhs are lying with the Sale Officer. Hence, there was no need for the 1st respondent to deposit the amount. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and also the fact that the sale proceeds in respect of the lands in question are lying with the Sale Officer; it would suffice if a direction is issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner expeditiously. 10. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal with a direction to the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada to dispose of the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner in O.A.No.32 of 2008, pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from today. Till such time, the interim stay granted by this Court on 06-05-2009 shall continue. 10. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. No costs. __________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ___________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J September 25, 2009. KTL