THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18433 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring tender-cum-open auction notice issued by the third respondent - Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer/Liquidator, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, proposing to sell the lands admeasuring Acs.33.23 guntas covered by Survey No.3/above situated near Ieeza Old Bus Stand, Ieeza Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that there is an old existing temple of Lord Anjaneyaswamy in Ieeza Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and he is performing poojas from the last more than 40 years. It is also his case that though the aforesaid notified property belongs to the said temple and the Lord Anjaneyaswamy is being worshipped by the Villagers of Ieeza, to their utter surprise, a pamphlet on 29.08.2009 was issued by the third respondent proposing to sell the lands by way of conducting open auction on 03.09.2009. Mainly, on the ground that there is no reason for sale of such lands, the present Writ Petition is filed. A counter-affidavit is filed by the Assistant Registrar/Liquidator, Cooperative Marketing Society, Gadwal, on behalf of the third respondent. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Gadwal, has purchased Ac.1.20 guntas of land covered by Survey No.3/Paiki of Ieeza Village through document No.484/1961, dated 09.08.1961 and constructed a godown thereon with the financial assistance sanctioned by the Government and there was sufficient open space, available for marketing the produce of the farmers/members of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. It is further stated that in 1986-87, the Society has become dormant and the Additional Registrar, Office of Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has ordered for liquidation of the Society, in exercise of power under Section 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, by proceedings, dated 24.02.1987 in Rc.No.13828/5/87-SW1, and respondent No.3 was appointed as a liquidator under Section 65 of the said Act. It is further stated that the Cooperative Sub-Registrar / Liquidator has conducted the land survey to know the actual land of the Society so as to sell the same in discharge of liabilities. In the survey, it was noticed that an extent of 0.01.5 guntas of land was encroached by private persons; in an extent of 0.01.2 guntas of land, there is a temple; an extent of 0.09.0 guntas is occupied by the Gram Panchayat and 0.04.6 guntas of land is used for internal roads, as such, the liquidator submitted proposals to the Government for sale of remaining land of 0.34.5 acres by open auction and the Government has granted permission vide G.O.Rt.No.11299, dated 22.10.2008. It is also stated that pursuant to the tender-cum-auction notice, auction was held on 24.09.2009 and the highest bid was for Rs.29,51,000/- and the successful bidders deposited 15% of the sale amount but in view of the orders passed by this Court, the sale was not confirmed. It is categorically stated that an extent of 0.01.2 guntas of land occupied by the temple has not been put to auction. In similar lines, counter-affidavit is filed by the impleaded parties. In this Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an old temple, in which, Lord Anjaneyaswamy idol is there and it is being worshipped by the villagers as such there is no reason for issuing the impugned tender-cum-auction notice for sale of the lands in question. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that the Writ Petition is filed only on the ground that the property belongs to the temple but from the documentary evidence, which is referred to in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is clear that the property is owned by the Society and only to discharge its liabilities, the vacant land was notified for sale, in the open auction. Although it is the allegation of the petitioner that the lands in question belong to the temple, the temple is not made party respondent in the Writ Petition. In the counter- affidavit, there is a specific denial of the allegation of the petitioner that the notified land belongs to the temple, and in clear terms, it is explained that total extent of Ac.1.20 guntas of land including the land, which is notified for sale, was purchased by the Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Gadwal, by registered conveyance deed vide document No.484/1961, dated 09.08.1961. In that view of the matter, in the absence of temple being party to the Writ Petition and as there is an averment in the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Registrar/Liquidator, Cooperative Marketing Society, Gadwal, with regard to execution of sale deed in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas including the land, which is notified for sale, the plea of the petitioner that the lands in question belong to the Temple cannot be accepted. In any event, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that out of Ac.1.20 guntas of land covered by Survey No.3/above at Ieeza Village, several encroachments were there and it is clearly stated that an extent of 0.0.1.2 guntas of land, on which the temple is constructed, has not been put to auction. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of expiry of three years period, very proceedings appointing the liquidator stands terminated, such ground is not mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition as such there is no occasion to explain with regard to the same in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents. In view of the fact that the material referred to in the counter-affidavit shows that the society was the owner of the lands in question and as it is stated that the encroachment portions were removed and rest of the area, which is owned by the society, is put to auction to discharge its liabilities, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned tender-cum-auction notice. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th DECEMBER, 2011. kvni