HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1911 of 2007 Date : 10-2-2011 Between : Jasthi Krishnaveni Mamatha .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Commissioner & Registrar, Co-operation Department, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : G.P. for Co-operation Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for respondent No.6 : Sri Rajkumar for Mr.Ch.Dhanamjaya The Court made the following : ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order of respondent No.3 allowing E.P.Nos.316 and 317 of 2006-07 filed by respondent No.5 by setting off land admeasuring Ac.0-72 cents from out of Ac.8-06 cents in R.S.Nos.23, 24 and 26/1 of Sanivarapupeta village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. The facts in a nutshell, necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are as under: The petitioner is no other than the grand-daughter of respondent No.6. She claims to be the lawful owner of an extent of Ac.8-06 cents of land on the strength of a registered gift settlement deed executed by her mother Nimmagadda Vijayalakshmi on 5-3-2003. It is the case of the petitioner that her mother has succeeded to the said property through a testamentary succession, namely, a will, stated to have been executed by her grand father K.Suryanarayana. However, respondent No.6 who is the daughter of the said K.Suryanarayana mortgaged the above mentioned land in favour of respondent No.4-society. Civil litigation ensued between the petitioner’s mother and respondent No.6. According to the petitioner, respondent No.6 lost the litigation before the civil court and that an appeal is pending in this court. In the meantime, on the basis of the certificate issued under Section 71 of A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964, against respondent No.6, an execution petition was filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.2. In order to recover the loan amount, an extent of Ac.0-72 cents which is part of the above mentioned land was sought to be sold. The petitioner filed claim petition in E.P.Nos.2875/2002-03 and 2865/2002-03 which was dismissed on 12-4-2006 by respondent No.3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operation, who by his order dated 29-5-2006 directed that the proposed sale shall not be proceeded with. Subsequently, fresh E.P.Nos.316 and 317 of 2006-07 were filed by respondent No.5 before respondent No.2. In the said E.Ps., the above mentioned property was again sought to be sold. As no buyer has come forward for purchase of the property, the sale was set off in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent No.3. It is this order which is questioned in this Writ Petition. The main contention advanced by Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though the mother of the petitioner has succeeded all through in the civil litigation with respondent No.6 and also before the revenue authorities, the petitioner’s claim petition was illegally rejected in the first instance and that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said rejection is pending before the Registrar. He further submitted that when the orders passed in the first set of E.Ps. were subject matter of appeal before the Registrar, fresh set of E.Ps. ought not to have been filed and that at any rate, the property should not have been put to sale and set off in favour of respondent No.5 without notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel further stated that to show her bona fides, the petitioner is prepared to deposit the balance E.P. amount in addition to the amount already deposited by her. He stated that the petitioner may be given opportunity of putting forth her claim before respondent No.3 by reopening the E.Ps. After hearing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for respondent No.5, I am of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are reasonable. The facts noted above would show that there is a bona fide civil litigation between the petitioner and her mother on one side and respondent No.6 on the other and that so far respondent No.6 who mortgaged the property has lost before all the fora. On these undisputed facts, I find no justification in respondent No.3 not putting the petitioner on notice before closing the E.Ps. by setting off the property in favour of respondent No.5. Inasmuch as the petitioner is making an offer of deposit of the balance E.P. amount which will protect the interests of respondent No.5, it would be in the interest of justice that the two E.Ps. which were closed i.e., E.P.Nos.316 and 317/2006-07 are reopened, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth her case. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed subject to the following terms : (i) Within two months from today, the petitioner shall deposit the balance E.P. amount with respondent No.3; (ii) On such deposit, E.P.Nos.316 and 317/2006-07 stand reopened; (iii) The petitioner shall file her claim petition before respondent No.3 on receipt of notice from the latter; and (iv) Thereafter, respondent No.3 shall consider the claim petition of the petitioner and pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. The above exercise shall be completed by respondent No.3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The deposit made by the petitioner shall await the outcome of the decision of respondent No.3. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 10-2-2011 AM