IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.03 of 2010 Between: Sura Veera Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Kadapa District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Kadapa, Kadapa District and two others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court ordered notice before admission on 06-01-2010 and further made the following order: “Respondents are directed not to evict the petitioner from the land in question, without following due process of law.” 2. The first respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.217 of 2010. Second and third respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.299 of 2010. When the vacate applications came up for hearing the learned counsel on record made submissions in elaboration and further made a request for final disposal of the writ petition itself. Hence, the writ petition being itself disposed of finally. 3. Sri Velivela Sreenivasa Rao, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the material papers which had been placed before this court and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as already there is a direction not to evict the petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law, the writ petition to be allowed to the said extent by making appropriate further directions, if necessary. 4. Per contra the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agricultural Cooperation had taken this court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and also placed before this court the order made in W.P.No.16577 of 2004 and would maintain that in the light of the clear order of penalty inasmuch as the writ petitioner did not approach this court with clean hands and obtain interim orders by suppressing the facts the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Sri S. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent also made similar submissions and pointed out to the relevant portions of the counter-affidavit filed along with W.V.M.P.No.217 of 2010. 6. Heard the learned counsel. 7. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.534/4 of Guntapalli Revenue Village, Badwel Mandal, Kadapa district, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice, as illegal, arbitrary. 8. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 9 . It is the case of the writ petitioner that that the 1st respondent is the owner of Ac.0.07 cents of land in Survey No.534/4 of Guntapalle Revenue Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District and as it is no way useful to the 1st respondent and as the encroachments are coming up, the respondents decided to lease out the said land to third parties on monthly rentals. On the request of the petitioner, the 1st respondent vide Resolution No.5, dated 27.09.1999, resolved to lease out Ac.0.03 ½ cents to the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. However, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa, recommended for enhancement of rent for Rs.1,000/- per month instead of Rs.500/- per month, and accordingly, the 1st respondent with the approval of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa, granted lease hold to him initially for a period of five years. Thereafter, again the General Body of the 1st respondent vide Resolution, dated 12.06.2004, unanimously resolved to grant lease for a period of 30 years on monthly rent, enhanceable at 11% for eavery three years and accordingly executed an agreement of lease on 16.06.2004 granting lease hold rights over an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.534/4 of Guntapalli Revenue Village for a period of 30 years. 10. It is further stated that since the date of lease, the petitioner had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and running small Tiffin and Tea Center and eking out his livelihood. While it is so, on 31.12.2009, some of the officials of the 1st respondent came to the site and directed the petitioner to vacate the site immediately by saying that the 1st respondent is proposing to sell away the total seven cents to third parties and if they would be in possession of property, nobody would purchase the site. The petitioner represented the matter to the officials that his tenancy is still subsisting and he had been regularly paying rent to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent cannot sell away by throwing out him from the site by forcibly. He further stated that he is entitled to continue as a tenant in the premises till the expiry of lease period of 30 years as per the terms of agreement of lease. He further stated that the officials of the 1st respondent without caring to his representations, directed him to vacate the site at any cost by 02.01.2010 or on 04.01.2010, the respondents evict him by using police force. 11. It is further stated that the petitioner is eking out livelihood by running a small Tiffin and Tea Center in the leased land, and it is the only source of his living. All of a sudden, if the authorities throw him out without showing any reason, he would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. He further stated that the respondents and their officials, being statutory authorities, are bound to follow principles of natural justice. So far no notice is issued to him, he is entitled to continue during his lease period and even if the respondents want to cancel his lease and evict him from the land, the respondents have to follow due process of law. The respondents are not entitled to take the law into their hands and force him to vacate, just to help some bid people, who have an evil eye over the subject land. 12. On the contrary, learned Government Pleader for Co- operation, the 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Writ Petitioner already filed the W.P.No.16577 of 2004, stating that he is the lease holder of land admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.534/4 of Guntapalli Revenue Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, for 38 years. But the respondents cancelled the lease deed, dated 16.06.2004. This Court dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that though the petitioner executed the lease deed for a period of thirty years without any prior permission from the competent authority as required under Section 9(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), the same had not been registered. As the Resolution passed by the person-in-charge committee was not signed by the members of the Managing Committee and the petitioner has not deposited any amount towards advance. The action of the respondents in issuing notice, dated 08.09.2004, canceling the lease deed cannot be said to be illegal. The Writ Petition was, therefore, dismissed as devoid of merits. The petitioner suppressed the facts of dismissing the W.P.No.16577 of 2004 by this Court. Intention of filing the present Writ Petition is creating multiple litigation and wasting the valuable time of the Court and officers of the Co-operative Society. 13. It is further stated that the petitioner got lease agreement of Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.534/4 of Guntapalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, by “Incharge Business Manager”, when the Regular Business Manager was on leave, which is illegal. The petitioner never fulfilled the agreement conditions, like depositing of cash security. He never permitted the agreed monthly rents as per the agreement. The lease agreement was unregistered. 14. It is stated that the successive and Regular Managing Committee under the Charimanship of the Joint Collector, Kadapa, took the charge, examined the issue and cancelled the agreement in public interest. The petitioner filed W.P.No.16577 of 2004 by challenging the Act of Joint Collector/Person Incharge of the defendant society. This Court after examining the case, dismissed the W.P.No.16577 of 2004. 15. It is further stated that it is Blatant lie that the petitioner running a small Tiffin and Tea Center in site for eking out his livelihood. This contention that his tenancy is still subsisting is wrong. When this Court dismissed W.P.No.16577 of 2004 and upheld the action of Joint Collector/person incharge of the defendant society canceling the agreement, there is no measuring that his tenancy still subsists. After dismissing W.P.No.16577 of 2004, dated 27.09.2005, if he is continuing in that site, he will become encroacher, he should vacate from the said site which belongs to a Co-operative Society, thus, a public property. 16. Further it is stated that the writ petitioner is a landlord in the fertilizer dealer at Badvel and he participated in auction on 24- 12-2009 by paying deposit amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for Rs.1,42,85,900/- for the same site. Further it is stated that the Co-operative Society brought this vacant site of 7- 460 cents in Sy.No.534/4 of Guntapalle village of Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District after obtaining prior permission from Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies of Andhra Pradesh. As per the statutory requirement and following instructions brought to public auction on 24-12-2009 and earned an amount of Rs.1,42,85,900/-. The amount 1/4th received from highest bidder. The petitioner obtained interim orders from this court by suppressing the facts that he is not in a possession of the subject land, so he is no way concerned to the subject land. 17. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 almost same stand had been taken. It is stated that the agreement, dated 16.06.2004, on which the petitioner was placing reliance was cancelled on 08.09.2004. It is stated that to grab the property in question, the petitioner during the year 2004 managed to obtain a lease deed from the unofficial person – incharge of the society, when the regular Business Manager was on leave and the Assistant Business Manager was incharge. He never fulfilled even the agreement conditions like depositing of cash security. He never remitted the agreed monthly rent as per the agreement executed by incompetent Managing Committee under the Chairmanship of the Joint Collector, Kadapa, examined the issue and cancelled the agreement in the interest of public on 08.09.2004. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16577 of 2004 in this Court. This Court after examining all the pleas, dismissed the W.P.No.16577 of 2004 vide orders dated 27.09.2005. To the knowledge of these respondents, no appeal was filed against this order and the same has become final. There is no lease in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, by suppressing these facts, filed this Writ Petition, as if the lease is subsisting. 18. It is further stated that it is a blatant lie that the petitioner is running a small Tiffin and Tea Center in the land in question and eking out his livelihood. The contention that his tenancy is still subsisting is untenable in view of the cancellation vide order dated 08.09.2004 which was upheld in W.P.No.16577 of 2004. The petitioner is put to proof of the other averments regarding his alleged possession and the directions said to have been issued by the officers of the 1st respondent. 19. It is further stated the averments in Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit are nothing but concoction to gain sympathy from the Court. The petitioner is a landlord and fertilizer dealer at Badvel. In fact, the property of the society including the land in question was put to auction. The petitioner himself participated in the bid on 24.12.2009 by paying Rs.2,00,000/- as deposit. The sale was knock down in favour of one Sri P. Brahma Reddy, who is highest bidder in the sale and an amount of about Rs.35,00,000/- was also deposited. The petitioner, who is well aware of these crucial facts, suppressed the same and did not implead the successful bidder, which is fatal to the Writ Petition. 20. It is stated that the 1st respondent, Co-operative Society, brought the vacant site of Ac.07.460 Cents in Survey No.534/04 of Guntapalli Village of Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, including the land in question to public auction after obtaining prior permission for disposal, the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, as per the statutory requirement and on 24.12.2009 auction was conducted. The land was sold for Rs.1,42,85,900/-. The petitioner with oblique motive filed the present Writ Petition concealing the previous W.P.No.16577 of 2004 filed by him and several other material facts. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of the facts. His conduct disentitles him from securing any reliefs from this Court and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 21. The order made in the prior writ petition No.16577 of 2004 also had been placed before this court wherein this court while dismissing the writ petition observed as follows: “Though the petitioner executed the lease deed for a period of thirty years without any prior permission from the competent authority as required under Section 9 (A) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, the same has not been registered. As the resolution passed by the Person-in-Charge-Committee was not signed by the members of the Managing Committee and the petitioner has not deposited any amount towards advance, the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated 08-09-2004 cancelling the lease deed, cannot be said to be illegal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs.” 22. In the light of the prior order and also in the light of the fact that the petitioner also participated in the auction and having suppressed the same, obtained the present interim order, this court is thoroughly satisfied that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J February 02, 2010. Note: Furnish CC in two (2) days. B/o.Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.03 of 2010 February 02, 2010 Note: Furnish CC in two (2) days. B/o.Pn