HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.995 of 2005 Dated: 19-08-2010 Between: Tungala Devaki & another. … Petitioners And Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/Regional Manager, A.P.Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Ltd. & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.995 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 9th November 2004, passed by the Sale Officer, A.P. Co- operative Housing Societies Federation Limited, Vijayawada, in Claim Petition No.1 of 2004 in E.P.No.516/2000-2001. The father of the petitioners, by name Sri Tungala Venkata Basava Subrahmanyeswara Rao, obtained a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the 3rd respondent-Society. As a security for the aforesaid loan, he mortgaged house property. When the loan amount was not repaid, the 3rd respondent-Society has obtained an Award against the loanee and filed an Execution Petition before the Sale Officer in E.P.No.516/2000-2001. When the subject matter of mortgage was notified for sale, the petitioners, who are sons of the loanee, have filed an application by way of Claim Petition, claiming that they are also shareholders in the property, as such, they have objected for attachment and sale to the extent of their share. Rejecting such a claim, the impugned order is passed by the Sale Officer/Recovery Officer, stating that no material is placed on record, in support of the plea that the petitioners herein are entitled for shares. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.2 of 2004, which appears to have been filed only after the Award is passed. The loan was obtained by mortgaging the property, and at no point of time, the petitioners have raised any objection for such mortgage, but when the loan amount was not repaid, and the Society proceeded with recovery after obtaining Award, this application is filed by the petitioners, which itself shows that it is a collusive application, filed at the instance of the loanee, so as to curtail the process of sale to recover the amount covered by E.P.No.516/2000- 2001. In any event, for the reasons stated by the Sale Officer/Recovery Officer, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order, in this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. However, if the loan amount is not repaid, it is open for the petitioners to repay the same, so as to avoid sale of property, in which, petitioners are claiming share. In that view of the matter, no steps shall be taken for a period of eight weeks from today, and in the meanwhile, it is open for the petitioners to approach the authority and repay the amount due to the 3rd respondent-Society. If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid time, it is open for the 3rd respondent-Society to take appropriate steps for recovery of amount in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ 19th August 2010 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr