THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.3615 of 2010 Date : 24-1-2011 Between : Divvela Murali Krishna .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the District Collector (Coop.) Collectorate, Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole, Prakasam District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri S.Narendranath Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P. for Co-operation Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri C.Niranjan Rao Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri M.Sree Rama Murthy The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings dated 26-12-2009 of respondent No.2 and direct the said respondent to put the petitioner in possession of the property bearing D.No.35-4-58, Seetharamapuram, Ongole, Prakasam District. I have heard Sri S.Narendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Respondent No.5 is the owner of the above mentioned property which was sold in public auction held by respondent No.2 towards recovery of loan payable to respondent No.4-Bank. The sale held in favour of the petitioner was confirmed and a sale certificate was given to him on 18-8-2009. As the petitioner was not put in possession of the property after evicting respondent No.5, he has caused a legal notice dated 14-12-2009 issued to respondent No.2 to which the latter gave a reply dated 26-12-2009 stating inter alia that there is no procedure prescribed under the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964 (for short “the Act”) or the Rules made thereunder for evicting the defaulting owner of the property and putting the purchaser in physical possession of the same. Feeling aggrieved by this stand taken by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules made thereunder which expressly prescribed the procedure for evicting the previous owner of the property and putting the auction purchaser in possession. The learned counsel however invited my attention to Clause 15 of Rule 52 of the Rules framed under the Act which reads as under : “Where any lawful purchaser of immovable property is resisted and prevented by any person, other than a person (not being the defaulter) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account from obtaining possession of the immovable property purchased, any Court of competent jurisdiction, on application and production of the certificate of sale, provide for by sub-rule (14) shall cause the proper process to be issued for the purpose of putting such purchaser in possession in the same manner as if the immovable property purchased has been decreed to the purchaser by a decision of court.” The above reproduced provision enables the petitioner to approach the competent court for evicting the defaulter and putting him in possession. Therefore, in the absence of any provision under which respondent No.2 is under obligation to put the petitioner in possession of the property, the latter has to work out his remedy under the above noted provision. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.4733/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 24-1-2011 AM