THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27335 of 2010 Dated 16th November, 2011 Between: P.Vijay Kumar Reddy and others …Petitioners And Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation, 5th Floor, D.S.S.Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Vidyasagar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri M.Sudhir Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri G.Gopala Krishna For Sri A.Krishnam Raju 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 declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre towards sale consideration of the lands sold by the petitioners in favour of third party beneficiaries under a scheme framed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are the owners of certain agricultural lands. Respondent No.1 has evolved a scheme by which private lands are provided to the eligible scheduled caste persons through sale by the owners of the lands. Under the scheme, each beneficiary is provided with Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing Ac.1.00 each. As per the internal arrangement, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to pay Rs.30,000/- as subsidy and the balance amount of Rs.70,000/- will be paid by the banker to the beneficiary as loan. Under the above-mentioned scheme, respondent No.2 has identified the petitioners’ lands admeasuring Acs.15.18 guntas of Mutyalapally Village, Parkal Mandal, Warangal District. The District Level Committee constituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 visited the Village in which the lands are situated in April, 2006 and negotiated with the petitioners for sale of the same. After obtaining consent from the petitioners for sale, respondent No.2 adopted the action plan and approached respondent No.3 for implementation of the scheme. Following the understanding, the petitioners were made to execute sale deeds conveying their lands to the beneficiaries on 02.02.2009 and 03.02.2009. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the sale deeds were executed, wherein it is recited that the sale consideration was paid, they were not paid any part of the sale consideration under the sale deed. They have, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the sale consideration along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. After filing of the writ petition, the State Bank of Hyderabad has been impleaded as respondent No.3 by the petitioners. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the latter has filed a counter affidavit. No counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3- Bank. In their counter affidavit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have admitted the above-mentioned facts. However, it is stated that respondent No.2 has released the subsidy amount of Rs.30,000/- in favour of respondent No.3-Bank vide cheque, dated 19.08.2010, and that it is respondent No.3, which is liable to pay the entire sale consideration, including the subsidy amount paid by respondent No.2, to the petitioners. I have heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for APSCCFCL, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri G.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.3. A perusal of the recitals of one of the sale deeds filed by the petitioners would show that on 10.12.2008, the Purchase Committee constituted by the District Collector, who is the Chairman of respondent No.2, made inspection of the lands and reached an agreement with the vendor in the presence of the beneficiaries for sale of land at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and that in consideration thereof, Rs.95,000/- as the price of the land for Ac.0.38 guntas was “received by the Vendors from the District Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal”, payment of which was acknowledged by the vendors, and that the vendors have delivered possession of the plots. In the table given in the sale deed, the market value of the land per acre is shown at Rs.1,00,000/-. It is an admitted fact that no part of the sale consideration has been paid to the petitioners. It is indeed astonishing that the sale deed contains an incorrect recital of payment of sale consideration. In strict sense, a sale deed without passing of consideration is not valid in the eye of law. However, the petitioners, who lost their lands as far back as 2009 do not appear to be interested in getting the sale deeds invalidated. They are only interested, and in my view justifiably, in receiving the sale consideration. The only reason put forth by respondent No.2 for non-payment of the sale consideration to the petitioners is that respondent No.3 has not acted upon the internal arrangement between them. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the petitioners are parties to the said arrangement. The above-mentioned recital in the sale deed to the effect that the consideration of Rs.95,000/- for Ac.0.38 guntas of land was received by the vendors from respondent No.2 itself implies that it is respondent No.2 which has taken the responsibility of payment of sale consideration even though the sale deeds were executed in favour of the beneficiaries. Therefore, in my opinion, respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot throw blame on respondent No.3 for non-payment of sale consideration to the petitioners. Even if the arrangement between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 has not come through in the matter of sanction of loan by respondent No.3, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer by denying them payment of sale consideration having taken possession of the lands from them. In the opinion of this Court, this action on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 constitutes patent arbitrariness and manifest illegality. It is for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to ensure that respondent No.3 has released the loan amount for payment to the petitioners. As they failed in this regard, they are primarily liable for the consequences thereof. In the premises as above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the entire sale consideration as per the sale deeds executed by the petitioners within a period of one month from today. Since the petitioners were deprived of their lands and were unjustly denied payment of consideration, in my opinion, the respondents are liable to pay reasonable interest, which is fixed at 12% per annum. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, have the liberty to recover interest from respondent No.3, if the latter is responsible for non-payment of sale consideration to the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.34918/2010, 9805 and 31164/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th November, 2011 VGB