HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.16490 of 2004 Date: January 18, 2008 Between: G. Ramdev Reddy. … Petitioner And 1. The Registrar of Co-op Society, Nampally, Hyderabad and 4 others. … Respondents * * * ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the action of the third respondent in auctioning the property bearing Plot No.89/A, Phase-I, I.D.A, Jeedimetla, R.R. District, admeasuring 2400 square yards, by suppressing litigation involved in the said property and accepting 15% bid amount and further directing the petitioner to deposit the bid amount in the Prudential Co-operative Bank, Secunderabad, being the highest bidder and not showing the property to the petitioner for inspection before payment of balance amount, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently direct the respondents to return the said amount with bank interest forthwith or else make the property free from all encumbrances including evicting the “Petrox Packaging (India) Private Limited”, represented by its Managing Director (4th respondent herein). 2. The Sale Officer in E.P.No.325 of 2003 issued a sale notification that the property in question will be brought to sale. After verification of the said notification, the petitioner participated in the auction and he became the highest bidder in the auction. As per the terms of the sale notice, he paid 15% bid amount and the balance amount is supposed to be paid within 15 days from the date of auction. But the petitioner failed to pay the said amount on the ground that he was not allowed to inspect the premises for which he issued a notice to the Sale Officer and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies bringing to their notice that he was not allowed to see the premises in question and subsequently he came to know that it was under lease of the 4th respondent. 3. The petitioner approached this Court to declare that the auction of the property is illegal. The terms and conditions of the auction are listed. The petitioner after payment of the sale amount and obtaining the sale deed should file an execution petition under Rule 52 sub-rule 15 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. Rule 52 sub-rule 15 reads as follows: “52. Procedure in execution of decrees, decisions or orders:- (15) Where any lawful purchaser of immovable property is resisted and prevented by any person, other than a person (not being the defaulter) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account from obtaining possession of the immovable property purchased, any Court of competent jurisdiction, on application and production of the certificate of sale, provide for by sub-rule (14) shall cause the proper process to be issued for the purpose of putting such purchaser in possession in the same manner as if the immovable property purchased has been decreed to the purchaser by a decision of court.” The petitioner instead of following the procedure prescribed under Rule 52 sub-rule 15 of the said Rules simply sent notices to the concerned authorities and kept quiet. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the bid amount was not paid within the stipulated time, the sale cannot be confirmed in favour of the petitioner and the concerned authorities have no power to receive the sale consideration subsequent to the date stipulated under the auction notice. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to say that the auction held was illegal and he is entitled either for return of deposit amount or he shall be permitted to pay the balance amount to enable him to obtain a sale deed in his name. 5. After going through the entire material, I am of the view that the respondents have not committed any illegality either in conducting auction or in receiving the initial deposit of 15%. The petitioner has been contending that the factum that the industry is in possession of another person is not disclosed. But the 4th respondent, being the person in possession of the property, did not claim any title over the property. Therefore, the petitioner could have proceeded further by paying the balance amount, as the title of the property is not in dispute. 6. In the light of the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the proceedings and there are no grounds to issue any direction to the respondents. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ (Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU, J) Date: January 18, 2008. BSB