IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9450 of 2005 Between: MEDA KOTESWARA RAO S/o.Venkayya R/o.Konathamatmakur Village (Via) Veerlapadu, Nandigama Mandal Krishna district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank. Rep by its General Manager Machilipatnam, Krishna district. 2 The Dy.Registrar/ Officer on Special Duty, The K.D.C.C.Bank at Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 Konathamatmakur PACS, Rep by its Official Person-in - Charge. / The Branch Manager, KDCC Bank, Nadigama Branch, Nandigama Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to May be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to conduct auction of the landed property to an extent of Ac.3.93 cents in R.S.No.152 belongs to the petitioner situated at Konathamatmakur Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District as per the impugned Auction notice in Form No.9 Under Rule 52, Sub-rule 11 (e) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Rules, dt.21-03-2005, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the one time settlement guidelines issued by the NABARD and consequently to set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared for respondents. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9450 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in proposing to conduct auction of the property of the land admeasuring Ac.3.93 cents in R.S.No.152 of the petitioner of Konathamatmakur Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the respondents. Heard Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. 3. The petitioner and his father obtained term loans from Respondent No.3. In pursuance of the guidelines of One Time Settlement (O.T.S) Scheme issued by NABARD, out of the total amount of Rs.79,675/- in respect of both the term loans obtained by the father of the petitioner, respondent No.3 directed him to pay a sum of Rs.36,745/-, with the remaining amount being returned oﬀ. The petitioner further averred that as regards the loan availed by him, respondent No.3 directed him to pay a sum of Rs.27,726/- towards O.T.S. He also averred that, on 25.06.2002, the petitioner paid 25% of the loan amount settled under the O.T.S. Scheme, which came to Rs.16,118/-, and receipts were issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner also stated that when the balance amount was demanded by respondent No.3, he paid another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 28.06.2004, which was kept in suspense account by respondent No.3. According to him, at the time of making payment of the said amount of Rs.10,000/-, he requested the respondents to accept the balance amount arrived at under the O.T.S. Scheme, but they have not accepted the said request on the ground that the validity of O.T.S. Scheme under which the loan amounts were ﬁnalized in favour of the petitioner expired and that when the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents about the guidelines issued by the NABARD on 03.08.2004, they refused to accept the same. The petitioner assailed in this writ petition notice, dated 21.03.2005, issued in Form No.9 under Rule 52, Sub-Rule 11(e) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, wherein the respondents proposed to auction the above mentioned agricultural lands of the petitioner. 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the guidelines issued in August, 2004, by the NABARD, providing for O.T.S Scheme in respect of the loan accounts of small and marginal farmers, which were in default as on 24-06.2004. Since no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled, the plea of the petitioner as reinforced by the learned counsel at the hearing that the petitioner’s case is fully covered by the above mentioned Scheme deserves to be accepted. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and impugned notice, dated 21.03.2005, issued by respondent No.2 is quashed. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for One Time Settlement in pursuance of the guidelines issued by NABARD in the year 2004 and pass appropriate order. In the event the petitioner’s claim for O.T.S is rejected, respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same to him, before seeking to proceed to recover the outstanding loan amount from the petitioner. _____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26th August, 2008 v v