Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Lakkimsetty Suranna vs M/S.Tatipaka Primary Agriculture ... on 16 September, 2025
APHC010113252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH-^
AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT APPEAL Nos: 199 AND 200 OF 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO: 199 OF 2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the
common order dated 18-02-2025 in W.P. No.4029/2024 in the file of the High
Court of A.P.
Between:
Lakkimsetty Suranna, S/o.L.Subba Rao Aged about 78 years, Occ:
Agriculture R/o.D.No.1-123, Doragari Thota, Bypass Road, Razole, Razole
Mandal Konaseema/East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.
...Appellant/Respondent No.2
AND
1. M/s Tatipaka Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Limited,
No.3746, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Office at D.No.5-
341, Near PeddaVantena, Tatipaka, Razole Mandal, Konaseema/
East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal secretary
Agriculture and Cooperation Department Secretariat, Amaravati,
Guntur District, AP.
3. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kuchumanchivar i
Agraharam, Sahakara Bhavanam Amalapuram, Konaseema/East
Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents/Respondents 1 & 3^
lA NO: 2 OF 2025,
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the operation of the order dt. 18-02-2025 passed in
W.P.No.4029/2024 pending disposal of the above writ appeal.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI ^
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI SRINIVAS BASAVA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : GP FOR COOPERATION
APHC010116052025
WRIT APPEAL NO: 200 OF 2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the
common order dated. 18-02-2025 in W.P. No.3570/2024 on the file of the High
Court of A. P. : .
Between:
Lakkimsetty Suranna, S/o.L.Subba Rao Aged about 78 years, Occ;
Agriculture R/o.D.No.1-123, DoragariThota, Bypass Road, Razole, Razole
Mandal Konaseema/East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner^
AND
1. M/s Tatipaka Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Limited,
No.3746, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Office at D.No.5-
341, Near PeddaVantena, Tatipaka, Razole Mandal, Konaseema/
East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal secretary
Agriculture and Cooperation Department Secretariat, Amaravati,
Guntur District, AP
3. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kuchumanchivar i
Agraharam, Sahakara Bhavanam Amalapuram, Konaseema/East
Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents-
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI r-
Counsel for the Respondent Np.1 : SRI SRINIVAS BASAVA ^
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : GP FOR COOPERATION
The Court made the following Common Judgment:
APHC010113252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 199/2025 along with
WRIT APPEAL No.200/2025
Between:
Lakkimsetty Suranna ...APPELLANT
AND
M/s Tatipaka Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit ...RESPONDENT(S)
Society Limited and Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.SRINIVAS BASAVA
2.GP FOR COOPERATION
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 16.09.2025
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)
The challenge laid in these writ appeals is to the common order dated
18.02.2025 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petitions vide
W.P.Nos.4029 of 2024 & 3570 of 2024.
2. Vide common orders impugned in these writ appeals, the learned
single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions filed by respondent no. 1-society,
thereby setting aside the orders passed in OA.No.53 of 2019 and O.A.No.20 of
'.WAMos.199 qZ 200/2025
2018 passed by A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, besides revoking the
registered revocation deed dated 21.09.2015 executed by the appellant with a
further observation that in case the property gifted by the appellant to the
society is not available, then the order of surcharge officer for recovery of
amount would be sustainable.
3. Inasmuch as both the writ appeals stem out of a common order,
they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The admitted facts are that the appellant was elected as president of
M/s.Tatipaka Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society Limited, a
society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, from 01.07.1987 to
30.06.1990 and he was elected as vice president of the said society from
04.02.2013 to 03.02.2018, besides as acting President of the society from
04.09.2014 to 28.09.2015. During the tenure of his presidentship, he had
executed a registered gift deed dated 02.01.1989 gifting away land in an
extent of Ac.0-08 cents in R.S.No.87/2 in favour of the society for the purpose
of construction of a building for the society in commemoration of his late
father. Later, the appellant filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.l3445 of 2000 to
declare the action of the District Collector and Revenue Divisional officer, in
}CC3<^iCJ ■
'.WAMos.199 ei 200/2025
3
allotting an extent of Ac.0-04 cents of land to the Society for the purpose of
construction of society building, contending that he had already gifted the
property in an extent of Ac.0-08 cents to the society for a specific purpose of
construction of society building, but in violation of the conditions of the gift.
the respondent nos.l & 2 therein- the District Collector, East Godavari and
Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, had assigned the extent of Ac.0-04
cents for the said purpose and therefore, the said action was illegal. The said
writ petition was dismissed, observing that once gift deed was executed, the
conditions imposed in the gift as to utilization of the property, would not bind
the donee and the Court declining to go into those aspects, left it open to the
appellant to approach the competent civil Court, if so advised. However, the
appellant without approaching civil Court, executed revocation of gift deed
dated 21.09.2015, while he was the acting president of the society, by signing
the said revocation deed on behalf of the society in the capacity of the Chief
Executive Officer.
5. The Auditor, having noticed the illegal alienation of the property.
submitted a report to higher officials and thereupon the District Cooperative
Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada ordered inspection under Section 52
.WJl.3fos.l99 ^ 200/2025
4
of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the ActO-
That the inspecting officer, after verification of documents and records of the
society, submitted his report to District Cooperative Officer, who, upon
considering the fraud and illegal revocation deed executed contrary to law,
was pleased to order surcharge proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act
appointing respondent no.3 as Surcharge Officer. That respondent no.3 upon
giving notice and ample opportunity to appellant, vide orders dated
05.03.2018 attached the subject property of gift and also passed an order
dated 13.08.2019 ordering to recover Rs. 18,00,000/- with interest at 15% per
annum.
6. The appellant challenged the attachment order dated 05.03.2018 by
filing O.A.No.20 of 2018 and Surcharge order dated 13.08.2019 by filing
O.A.No.53 of 2019 before the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. That the
Tribunal, vide orders impugned in the writ petitions, allowed the appeals
thereby setting aside the Surcharge order as well as attachment order.
Consequently, the respondent no.l filed the two writ petitions, assailing the
orders passed in O.A.Nos.20 of 2018 and O.A.No.53 of 2019 respectively.
yfCJ<€<RCJ .
'.WA-!Nbs.l99 ^ 200/2025
7. As stated supra, the learned single Judge, through the orders
impugned allowed the writ petitions, as specified at para-2 of this judgment.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred these writ appeals.
8. Heard Sri KChidambaram, learned senior counsel, representing Sri
Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Srinivas
Basava, learned counsel for respondent noA-M/s.Tatipaka Primary
Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited^.W petitioner.
9. Sri KChidambaram, learned senior counsel, in elaboration to the
contents of the counter affidavits and grounds of appeal, would contend that
the writ petitions having been filed by the cooperative society challenging the
orders passed by the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal in O.A.No.20 of 2018 and
O.A.No.53 of 2019, the learned single Judge ought to have confined the
decision as to whether the impugned orders passed by the tribunal are valid
or not. However, the learned single Judge, travelled much beyond the scope
of the writ petitions and revoked the gift cancellation deed, which was not at
all the issue to be decided and which was never sought for by the cooperative
society in the writ petitions. He would further contend that the society,
despite having knowledge of execution of registered revocation deed, did not
^a^<R£j
.WJ4MOS.199 ej 200/2025
challenge the same and allowed the same to exist and therefore, the learned
single Judge erred in revoking the same.
The learned senior counsel wouid further contend that in view of clear
admissions made by the society that possession of the property continued
with the appellant and that the gift given by him is conditional and defective
and hence there was no acceptance of the gift by the society and therefore,
the revocation deed is valid and binding on the society. He would further
contend that the gift deed was executed for a specific purpose and as tbe
society did not utilize the land for that purpose and moreover used some
other land for the purpose of construction of the society building in the name
of then president of the society, the appellant is entitled to get back the
property and accordingly in view of the resolution made by the society, he
executed the revocation deed revoking the earlier gift made by him. The
learned single Judge failed to take into consideration the factual aspects of
the matter and in utter ignorance that what was challenged in the writ
petition is the orders passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in O.As., whereby
and whereunder the surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 60 of the
Act were set aside, revoked the revocation deed. The orders impugned in
.WA.9fos.l99 SZ: 200/202J
these writ appeals are unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeals.
10. Sn Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for respondent no.l/writ
petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ petitions would contend
that as per byelaws of the Society, both the President and Executive Officer
should sign or endorse any document on behalf of the society, however, the
appellant alone had executed the revocation of the gift deed and therefore,
the revocation of gift deed is in violation of the byelaws of the society. He
would further contend that the writ petition vide W.P.No. 13445 of 2000 filed
by appellant was dismissed, observing that he is not precluded from
approaching the competent civil Court, despite the same, the appellant,
instead of approaching the civil Court, had executed the revocation deed
misusing his position as president of the society and thus caused loss to the
society to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- being market value of the property. He
would further contend that upon noticing the misdeeds committed by the
appellant, inspection was ordered under section 52 of Act and upon receipt of
the inspection report, the District Cooperative Officer was pleased to order
surcharge proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act and the surcharge
'H.^J.WosJ99 200/2025
8
officer after giving ample opportunity to the appellant, had rightly ordered to
recover Rs. 18,00,000/- from the appellant and further to attach the subject
matter of gift deed and revocation deed.
He would further contend that the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative
Tribunal, having failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case
and upon erroneous understanding of the ambit of section 60(1) of the Act
allowed the appeals preferred by the appellant/respondent no.2 and
therefore, the orders passed by the cooperative Tribunal are erroneous and
unsustainable in law besides being contrary to the provisions of the Act.
He would further contend that the Cooperative Tribunal failed to
observe that execution of deed by the appellant revoking the gift deed by
impersonating him as Chief Executive Officer signed the document without
permission would cause loss to the society to the extent of the value of the
property covered under the gift deed and further without drawing proper
inference of Section 60(1) of the Act, allowed the appeals preferred by the
appeilant/respondent no.2.
He would further contend that the learned single Judge upon
meticulous analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and by
J{C3^<RCJ
.WJl.!N'os.l99 ei 200/2025
applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that unilateral cancellation
of sale deed is impermissible, allowed the writ petitions and revoked the
revocation deed. He would further contend that the order impugned in these
writ appeals does not require any interference. The writ appeals being
meritless deserve dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeals.
11. Perused the material available on record and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
12. It is not in dispute that an inspection under Section 52 of the Act
was ordered into the affairs of the society with special reference to re
alienation of gifted land of Ac.0-08 cents. The Inspecting officer after
verification of concerned records as well as documents and upon examination
of the persons, submitted his inspection report. Thereupon the District
Cooperative officer, Kakinada issued findings on the inspection report
directing to initiate civil, criminal and institutional action against the person
liable for financial irregularities and loss caused to the assets of the society.
Consequently, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the appellant,
who was held liable in the inspection report and the said proceedings were
concluded vide orders dated 13.08.2019 holding that by execution of
.WA-9{os.l99 ei 200/2025
10
revocation deed, the appellant had caused loss to the society to the tune of
Rs. 18,00,000/- being market value of the property covered under the
revocation deed. In the meantime, v^de orders passed in C.E.P.No.ll/ 2017-
18, dated 05.03.2018 the property covered under the gift and revocation deed
was attached until further orders for securing an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-
being the market value of site of the society alienated in his favour by the
appellant. Challenging the said orders, the appellant preferred O.As. before
the Andhra Pradesh; Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada.
13. The Cooperative Tribunal, found that there is no material available
on record to show that the appellant had caused loss to the society and the
act of the appellant in cancellation of gift deed does not amount to
misappropriation, fraudulent retention, breach of trust or wilful negligence
and therefore, the initiation of surcharge proceedings under section 60(1) of
the Act based on the findings of inspection report is untenable. Accordingly,
vide separate orders dated 24.11.2023, both the O.As. were allowed, setting
aside the attachment orders passed in CRP No. 11/2017-18 and further setting
aside the orders passed against the appellant under section 60(1) of the Act,
whereby he was directed to pay Rs. 18,00,000/-.
.WJAMos.199 (d 200/2025
11
15. The learned single Judge, observing that the appellant being
president of the society is supposed to safeguard assets of the society,
instead, he, by abusing his powers, executed revocation deed rescinding the
registered gift deed earlier signed by him that too in contravention of all laws
including bylaws of the society and hence he is guilty of breach of trust as
enumerated in Section 60 of the Act.
16. Whether execution of revocation deed by the appellant would fall
within the ambit of Section 60 of the Act is to be decided.
17. The learned single Judge, placing reliance on the decisions in
Tfiota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesti^,
that unilateral cancellation of sale deed is impermissible, and in KoUa Rajesh
Chowdary v. State of Andhra Pradesh^ that Rule 26(k)(i) is equally
applicable to the gift deed; held that unilateral cancellation of gift deed by
way of registered revocation deed is void.
18. The appellant is donor of the property and the society is the donee.
The revocation deed was executed by the appellant representing the donee-
society, but not in the capacity of the donor. Therefore, the observations
\ 2010(15) see 207
^ 2019 see Online AP 18
^CJ^<RCJ
.WJi.!Nbs.l99 ^ 200/2025
12
made by the learned single Judge and the decisions relied on for recording
the said observations, are not applicable to the facts of this case.
19. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the appellant was properly
authorized by the society to execute such a revocation deed as per its bylaws.
20. The appellant took aid of resolution dated 22.12.1989 passed by
the society, stating that through the said resolution, the property earlier gifted
shall be. given back to him, in case the Society fails to obtain permission for
construction.
21. Resolution no.7 dated 22.12.1989 is to the effect that it was
unanimously resolved to return Ac.0-08 cents of land to the donor- then
president (appellant), at the expenses of the Society, if the building is not
constructed by obtaining permission by the month of March, 1990.
22. However, as per bylaw No.23, no member of the government body
shall be present in the meeting when his own matter or any matter in which
he is involved is under discussion. The copy of the resolution filed would go to
show that the appellant was very much present in . the meeting wherein
resolution no.7 came to be passed. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned
.WA-;Nbs.l99 ^ 200/2025
13
counsel for respondents, resolution no.7, which according to the appellant,
cloaks him with the authority to execute revocation deed, is invalid, since the
same has been passed in utter violation of bylaw No.23 of the society.
23. Moreover, as per bylaw no.29, the Chief Executive Officer and the
President of the Society should sign the documents and deeds executed by
the Society. Whereas the revocation deed was signed by the appellant, as if
he was the Chief Executive Officer of the Society and the then Chief Executive
Officer of the Society did not join execution of the revocation deed.
24. Therefore, since the revocation deed was executed by the appellant
without being authorized by a valid resolution of the society and as the then
Chief Executive Officer of the society did not join execution of the document,
the said revocation deed cannot be said to be a valid document in the eye of
law, since executed without any valid resolution and that too not by all the
persons as per byelaws of the Society.
25. Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 envisages
that where, in the Course of an audit under Section 52, it appears that any
person who is or was entrusted with the organisation, affairs or management
of the society has ; misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or
'>tC3<€^3
V.3X3fos.l99 200/2025
14
Other property or has been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society
or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or
wilful negligence, the Registrar himself, or any person specially authorised by
him in this behalf, may inquire into and make an order requiring him to repay
or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest.
25. The act of the appellant in executing a revocation deed without
being backed by any valid resolution would definitely fall within the ambit of
section 60 of the Act, as rightly held by the learned single Judge. Therefore,
the learned single Judge had rightly revoked the revocation deed, though not
for a tenable reason.
26. Since the revocation deed executed by the appellant is not a valid
document in eye of law, it would not confer any right or title over the property
in favour of the appellant and the property would continued to be the gifted
property of the society. Consequently, the document, if any, executed by the
appellant in relation to the subject property in favour of any third party would
not confer any title whatsoever over the subject property. Thus, execution of
revocation deed by the appellant, would not at all deprive the society of the
property covered under the revocation deed. Therefore, the order passed by
.WAMos.199 ^ 200/2025
15
the learned Single Judge that in case the property is not available, the order
passed by surcharge ofRcer would be sustainable, is untenable and so also
the surcharge order passed directing the appellant to pay Rs. 18,00,000/-
being market value of the property covered under the gift and revocation
deeds.
27. The entire facts make it clear that since the appellant despite gifting
the property could not get a building constructed in the name of his father as
desired and whereas the successor president could get a building constructed
in his name without parting any extent of his own land, out of righteous
indignation, might have resorted to execution of revocation deed. It is the
specific contention of the appellant that the gift deed is conditional and that
possession of the property covered under the gift deed is continued to be with
him and thus the gift deed executed by him is not valid. No doubt, it is the
appellant that had gifted the subject property to the society for the purpose of
construction of a building in the name of his father and moreover he took
positive efforts to get it done by filing writ petition and by initiating
proceedings before civil Court at Razole, however, he is not permitted to
execute documents in relation to that property. In case he feels that as the
f
^a<£i<R£3
.^^■3(05.199 eZ 200/2025
16
object of execution of gift deed is not fulfilled, he is entitled to get back the
property, he has to approach competent civil Court seeking cancellation of the
gift deed taking all the pleas available to him.
29. In view; of the above, the moment the revocation deed was
cancelled, the surcharge .order for recovering market value of the property
from the appellant and the attachment order over , the subject property
becomes superfluous. Therefore, the impugned order passed by learned
single Judge needs modification to that extent.
30. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of, confirming the order
of the learned single Judge so far as it relates to cancellation of revocation
deed and rest of the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The
appellant is at liberty to approach the competent civil court seeking
cancellation of the gift deed executed by him, if so advised. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Sd/- M RAMESH BABU
//TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) M/s. Tatipaka Primary Agriculture
Cooperative Credit Society Limited, No.3746, Office at D.No.5-341
Near Pedda Vantena, Tatipaka, Razole Mandal, Konaseema/ East
Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Principal secretary Agriculture and Cooperation Department, State
of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District, AP
3. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kuchumanchivari
Agraharam, Sahakara Bhavanam Amalapuram, Konaseema/East
Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.
4.
One CC to Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, Advocate [OPUC]^
5.
One CC to Sri Srinivas Basava, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUTf
7. Two CD Copies
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED: 16/09/2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
WA Nos. 199 & 200 OF 2025 % 23 SEP 2025 ^ ^'t Section . yf DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS