IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4785 of 2001 Between: B.Gangadhar S/o. Narsoji R/o. kammarpalli Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty, The Nizamabad District Co-op. Central Bank Limited, Nizamabad. 2 The Primary Agriculture Co-op. Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Kammarpalli, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 1st respondent in proposing to sale the petitioner's agricultural lands to an extent of 13.24 acres of Kammarpalli Village and Mandal in Nizamabad District in his sale notice dated 30.01.2001 without any authority as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against statutory provisions and consequently direct the respondents not to sale the agricultural lands of the Petitioner to an extent of 13.24 acres of Kammarplli Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MRCH.JANARDHAN REDDY FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4785 OF 2001 ORAL ORDER: The present writ petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the Deputy Registrar/Oﬃcer on Special Duty, Nizamabad District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nizamabad, the ﬁrst respondent in the writ petition, in proposing to put to sale the petitioner’s agricultural lands in Kammarpalli Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. The petitioner admits to the fact that he had taken a loan of Rs.86,800/- from the second respondent-Primary Agriculture Co- operative Society, Kammarpalli, Nizamabad District and that he was unable to repay the same. According to him, the ﬁrst respondent issued a sale notice proposing to put his lands to sale on 21.01.1999. His grievance, as reﬂected in the writ aﬃdavit, is that no notice was issued to him prior to the said sale notice. He stated to the eﬀect that he ﬁled C.T.A. No.23 of 1999 before the Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad, which was pending. His complaint is that during the pendency of the said Appeal, the ﬁrst respondent issued another sale notice dated 30.01.2001 proposing to put the lands to sale. This Court, by order dated 19.03.2001, directed the respondents not to sell the petitioner’s lands pursuant to the sale notice dated 30.01.201 subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits with the second respondent an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This Court explicitly stated that in the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount within the time stipulated, the said order would stand dissolved and thereafter, the respondents would be entitled to proceed further with the sale pursuant to the sale notice dated 30.01.2001. The respondents jointly ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating to the eﬀect that the petitioner committed default in the repayment of the loan and in spite of the best eﬀorts made by the respondents in due compliance with the procedure laid down by law, the petitioner failed to come forward to repay the loan amount. This failure on the part of the petitioner constrained the respondents to resort to the measure of putting the petitioner’s agricultural lands to sale. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner, having ﬁled C.T.A. No.23 of 1999 before the Co- operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, failed to comply with the interim order dated 20.02.1999 of the said Tribunal directing payment of 1/4th of the amount due. In the light of this failure on the part of the petitioner, the Tribunal dismissed C.T.A. No.23 of 1999 by its order dated 31.03.1999. Thereafter, another sale notice was issued proposing to put the petitioner’s lands to sale on 26.05.1999 and the same was challenged by the petitioner by way of C.T.A. No.102 of 1999 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Once again, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay 1/4th of the amount due within the stipulated time of 30 days. The petitioner again failed to comply with the said order constraining the Tribunal to vacate its earlier order on 20.07.1999. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, brought it to the notice of this Court that the petitioner failed to comply with the order of this Court directing payment of Rs.1,40,000/-. He also reported to this Court that C.T.A. No.102 of 1999 was also dismissed thereafter. In the light of the non-compliance of the interim order dated 19.03.2001 passed by this Court directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with a default clause, it is clear that there was no stay in favour of the petitioner after the expiry of the time stipulated by this Court in the said order. The learned counsel are not in a position to inform this Court as to whether the petitioner’s lands were put to sale after the expiry of the interim order dated 19.03.2001 owing to the non-compliance by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the conduct of the petitioner, be it before this Court or before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, clearly demonstrates his lack of bona ﬁdes insofar as the repayment of the admitted loan to the second respondent is concerned. The said conduct disentitles the petitioner to any relief in the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8th September, 2008. VGSR