IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9978 of 2002 Between: 1 P.T.Suresh Kumar, S/o late P.Nagerswara Rao, R/o Hyderabad. 2 P.Narayana Rao, S/o late Venkateswara Rao, R/o Hyderabad. …. PETITIONERS AND 1 The Sales Officer-cum-co-operaative Sub-Registrar, K.D.C.C.Bank Ltd., Pamarru, Krishna District. 2 The Special Category Deputy Registrar, K.D.C.C.Band Ltd., Machilipatnam. Krishna District. 3 The Registrar of co-operative Societies & Commissioner for co- operative, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gudivada, 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 will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action the 2ndRespondent herein in issuing the notice of sale in E.P.No.6/99- 2000 dated 2.5.2002 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents herein to give opportunity of claim before proceeding with the sale and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the second respondent in issuing the sale notice dated 02.05.2002 as illegal and arbitrary. 2) A surcharge order was passed against the father of the first petitioner and others for Rs.1,57,913.75 paise holding that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount and the said order became final. While so, the father of the first petitioner died. Later, the petitioners came to know that the second respondent without taking any steps of giving opportunity to the petitioners and to other legal heirs of the deceased issued the impugned sale notice and therefore, the same is quashed. 3) The first petitioner contended that his mother and himself submitted a representation to the third respondent for consideration of one time settlement, but no positive action was taken. He further contended that the property covered by the sale notice is a joint family property and in the year 1996 the property was shared among the father of the first petitioner and himself and the second petitioner, since the petitioners are having joint family interest and share in the schedule property. The bringing of property for sale without giving an opportunity to the petitioners is an illegality committed by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned sale notice is liable to be set aside. 4) Rule 52 (14) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, which reads as follows: “Rule 52 (14) (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale of immovable property, the decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of the assets or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Registrar of the district to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting it: Provided that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity, mistake or fraud unless the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity mistake or fraud. (ii) If application be allowed, the Registrar shall set aside the sale and may direct a fresh one. (iii) On the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale if no application to have the sale set aside is made under sub-rule (113) or under Clause (i) of this sub-rule or if such application has been made and rejected, the said Registrar shall make or order confirming the sale: Provided that, if he shall have reason to think that the sale ought to be set aside, notwithstanding that no such application which has been made or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which ahs been made and rejected, he may after recording his reasons in writing set aside the sale: (iv) Wherever the sale of any immovable property is not so confirmed or is set aside the deposit or the purchase money, as the case may be, shall be returned to the purchaser. (v) After the confirmation of any such sale, the said Registrar shall grant a certificate of sale bearing his seal and signature to the purchaser. , in all courts and tribunals where it may be necessary to prove it and no proof of the seal or signature of the Registrar of the district shall be necessary unless the authority before whom it is produced shall have reason to doubt its genuineness. (vi) An order made under Clause (v) of this sub-rule shall, subject to an appeal under Section 76 of the Act within 90 days from the date of the order, be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings.” 5) Even after receipt of the sale notice, the petitioners ought to have availed the opportunity of making representation and raising objections regarding the rights of their father and their rights, instead they directly approached this Court questioning the legality of the impugned sale notice. The notice is given under Rule 52 (ii) (e) of A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 and I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice. 6) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file objections, if any, before the respondents 1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of this order regarding their rights, if any, over the property and on filing of such objections, the respondents make necessary enquiry by giving opportunity to both parties and pass fresh orders according to law. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 18.02.2008 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies