IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12142 of 2009 Between: Karri Markandeya Reddy S/o Krishna Reddy R/o. 78-4-32 Gandhipuram-III,Rajahmundry East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P Cooperative Tribunal Visakhapatnam rep.by its District Judge/Chairman Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2 The District Collector East Godavari District Kakinada 3 The District Cooperative Officer O/o. Cooperation,Kakinada East Godavari District 4 The Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer Kakinada,East Godavari District 5 The Assistant Registrar Consumers & Weaker Sections O/o. Divisional Cooperative Officer,Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 6 The Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Cooperative Society Ltd bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-35, Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry East Godavari District 7 The Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Cooperative Society Ltd bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-35 Gorakshanapeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 8 Palivela Venkanna S/o. Late Sanyasi Rao Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Cooperative Society Ltd Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry East Godavari District 9 VankaYeeraya S/o Musalaiah Secretary of the Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Cooperative Society Ltd Bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-3-5 Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry, Pidimgoyya Rajahmundry(Rural) East Godavari District 10 Thanthara Trmurthulu S/o.Appanna Cooperative Society Ltd Bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-3-5 Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry, Pidimgoyya Rajahmundry(Rural) East Godavari District 11 IIIa Erukabbai S/o.Venkanna Cooperative Society Ltd Bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-3-5 Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry, Pidimgoyya Rajahmundry(Rural) East Godavari District 12 Ganteti Nooka Raju S/o.Kondaiah Secretary of the Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Cooperative Society Ltd Bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-3-5 Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry, 76-14-6 Rajahmundry(Rural) East Godavari District 13 Gara Yallayya, S/o.Gavaraiah Member of The Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Cooperative Society Ltd Bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-35 Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry, 21-5-25 Korlampeta Rajahmundry(Rural) East Godavari District 14 Telugu Appa Rao,S/o. Atchanna Member of The Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Cooperative Society Ltd Bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-35 Gorakshanapeta,Rajahmundry, 21-5- 18,Korlampeta Rajahmundry(Rural) East Godavari District 15 Gandam Ramana,S/o Appa Rapo Hindu Chairman & 8th Ward Congress Party Incharge, Rajahmundry and Representive of The Member of Cycle Cooperative Society Ltd Bearing D.No.1332 Situated at 76-9-35 Gorakshanapeta, Rajahmundry, 21-5-18,Korlampeta Rajahmundry(Rural) East Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to order for Writ of Certiorari of any other order of direction by quashing the judgment of the 1st respondent dt 30-04-2009 in O.A No.63/2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal Visakhapatnam ie the 1st respondent declaring that the attachment order passed by the Deputy Registrar of the 6th respondent office under Section 73 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964 over the Petitioner's purchased land in Rs No 266/1 Ranga Rao Nagar,Rajhmundry,East Godavari District under proceedings Rc No.1211/2008-C dt 30-6-2008 is not maintainable basing on the inquiry Report under section 52 of Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act conducted by the 5th respondent as highly arbitrary excessive capricious and against to the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he purchased an extent of 466.10 square yards of vacant house site in Sy.No.266/1 belonging to the 7th respondent-Rajahmundry Cycle Rickshaw Pullers Co-operative Society Ltd, and respondent Nos.8 to 14 are its members. While so, the 15th respondent made a representation to the 6th respondent-Divisional Co-operative Officer alleging that respondent Nos.8 to 14 sold the land to the petitioner at a meager rate without following the procedure. Thereafter, the 4th respondent-Joint Registrar ordered enquiry under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) into the allegations of irregular sale of the property and directed the 5th respondent-Inspector Officer to submit the report. Then, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Notice dated 26.6.2008 of Conditional Attachment of Immovable Property under Section 73 of the Act against the land purchased by the petitioner and directed him to furnish adequate security on or before 30.6.2008 for a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-, failing which, the land will be attached conditionally. Then, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam which was numbered as O.A. No.63 of 2008 and the 1st respondent, by its judgment dated 30.4.2009, without looking into the factual position and without insisting on filing enquiry report by the 5th respondent, has ordered conditional attachment of the land in question, which according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. To consider the question raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to go through the relevant portion of the Judgment dated 30.04.2009 delivered by the1st respondent-A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, which reads as under: “Under Section 73, the conditional attachment may be ordered, when there is possibility of passing an order against that person subject to existence of conditions laid down in the clauses (a), (b) but rider as to pendency of any proceedings is not contemplated in specific terms. In the present case, Section 52 inspection is admittedly pending and if the case is found against auction sale, the authority will proceed with appropriate enquiry. If the impugned order is viewed from the angle of equity, the conditional attachment will preserve the rights of the parties, and if the property is left unattached, the auction purchaser may create third party interests and may cause multiplicity of litigation. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant raised technical objection and as the very alienation of attached property itself is in dispute and the propriety of sale is under examination no irregularity in the impugned order can be found. Further there will be no harm to the rights if any acquired by the appellant or prejudice, just because of attachment. In strict practical sense, the attachment of property restricts only the power of alienation….. With the above discussion, we found no illegality in the impugned order. However the appellant can raise all his grievances against the order and 52 enquiry in the pending proceedings and the authority is directed to give proper opportunity to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the above observations.” From a perusal of the Notice dated 26.6.2008 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Rajahmundry it is clear that a condition is imposed directing the petitioner to furnish adequate security on or before 30.6.2008 for a sum of Rs.70 lakhs to satisfy any decree / decision / order that may be passed against him, failing which, the immovable property specified in the schedule will be conditionally attached under the provisions of the Act, and inasmuch as the delinquent failed to furnish adequate security, the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer was authorized to conditionally attach the immovable properties of the petitioner. It further becomes clear that the order of conditional attachment is passed only with a view to protecting the interests or rights of the parties from alienating the property in dispute since the propriety of sale is under examination. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the 1st respondent-District Judge/Chairman, who is the appellate authority, have rightly held that the conditional attachment of the property in question is only to preserve or protect the interests of the parties and to prevent them from alienating the schedule property to third parties till the condition stipulated is satisfied by the delinquent. By imposition of such condition, the rights of the petitioner are not at affected. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the reasoned and equitable judgment, dated 30.04.2009 delivered by the 1st respondent- Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd June, 2009 bcj