Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Posamsetty Srinivasa Dora, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 September, 2022
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.25565 of 2020
W.P.No.24552 of 2021
W.P.Nos.14121 & 16981 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
As these writ petitions raise the same questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. In all these cases, the petitioners had purchased plots from the Rajahmundry Public Servants Cooperative Building Society Limited, Rajahmundry (in liquidation). These purchases were by way of registered deeds of sale executed by the liquidator of the said society in the years 2013-2014.
3. These deeds of sale were assailed in various complaints filed by the members of the society in liquidation. The gravamen of the charge in the complaints is that the liquidator had sold the plots to non-members of the society in liquidation and that the existing layout had been changed by the liquidator and plot numbers were at variance from the approved layout plot numbers and these newly created plots were sold by the liquidator.
4. An enquiry is said to have been conducted on the basis of these complaints and a report bearing vigilance report C.No.843/V&E/D1/2017, dated 10.01.2019 had been placed before the authorities. It is stated that the said vigilance report had found fault with the then liquidator and gave a finding that the sale of the plots to about 30 persons, including the petitioners herein, had been done in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder, apart 2 RRR,J W.P.No.25565 of 2020 & batch from being carried out for extraneous reasons. Based on this report, the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies had issued a memorandum in File No.AGC06-15/26/2019-VACBC-CCRCS, dated 20.01.2020 to the District Cooperative Officer, East Godavari District. In this Memo, the District Cooperative Officer, East Godavari District informed that the Government had taken a decision to initiate action on the basis of the recommendations made by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department and directed the Commissioner for Cooperation to submit an action taken report. It is further stated that the Government had also requested the Commissioner to initiate action for cancelling the registrations pertaining to 30 plots in the layout of the society in liquidation and to initiate action on the officers mentioned in the vigilance report for their lapses.
5. On the basis of the above Memo, the District Cooperative Officer directed the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Rajahmundry to take immediate action in relation to the issues set out in the Memo of the District Cooperative Officer dated 31.01.2020.
6. After receiving the above Memo, the Divisional Cooperative Officer, in turn, issued Memo in Rc.No.1589/2013-C, dated 10.02.2020 to the liquidator of the society to take necessary action in terms of the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Cooperation. Pursuant to this Memo, the liquidator of the society in liquidation, who is arrayed as the 6 th respondent in W.P.No.24552 of 2021, had issued proceedings bearing Ref.No.9/RPSCBS/ 2020-1, dated 06.10.2020. In these proceedings, notices wereto the various 3 RRR,J W.P.No.25565 of 2020 & batch persons, who had purchased the 30 plots of land which are in dispute, calling upon these persons to show cause why steps should not be taken for deregistration of the plots. The petitioners were also called upon to appear before the liquidator on 19.10.2020 itself.
7. Thereafter, some of the persons to whom such notices have been issued, appear to have presented themselves before the liquidator and filed their objections/reply to the said show cause notices.
8. Thereafter, the writ petitioners, in the present set of writ petitions, who are said to be among 23 non-members and in favour of whom the plots had been alienated, have filed the present writ petitions challenging issuance of the aforesaid Memos and proceedings including, notice dated 06.10.2020 issued by the 6th respondent.
9. It is the case of the petitioners herein that they are all members of the society in liquidation and the contention that they are non-members is incorrect. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the authorities of the Cooperative Department, including the 6th respondent, do not have any power or jurisdiction to deregister the registered deeds of sale. The further contention of the petitioners is that there is no method of deregistration available under the Registration Act, 1908 or under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The only avenue available would be to initiate suits under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act before a Court of competent civil jurisdiction and as such the show cause notices are wholly without jurisdiction and required to be set aside.
4 RRR,J W.P.No.25565 of 2020 & batch
10. The 6th respondent is represented by Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi and a counter has been filed by the 6th respondent. In the said counter, it is the contention of the 6th respondent that in view of the fraud played on the society in liquidation, by the earlier liquidator and by the persons who have purchased the plots, it would be appropriate to permit deregistration of the deeds of sale and, in fact, the said deeds of sale would have to be treated as void and nonest on account of the fraud under which they are being registered.
11. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned Senior Counsel and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners in these writ petitions would contend that apart from lack of jurisdiction of the 6th respondent and other authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act, the notice would also have to be set aside on the ground that the basis for the said notice is the vigilance report and the same cannot be taken into account.
12. It is settled law that the only method under which a deed of sale can be cancelled is to approach the Court of competent civil jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Further, no provision of law under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act or the Rules made thereunder have been placed before this Court to show that the 6th respondent or any of the authorities under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act can trace their power to deregister the executed and registered deeds of sale. In the absence of any such power being available, the 6th respondent cannot deregister the registered deeds of sale and consequently the impugned show cause notice dated 06.10.2020 is also without jurisdiction and would have to be set aside.
5 RRR,J W.P.No.25565 of 2020 & batch
13. In the circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to go into the question whether the action could have been initiated on the basis of the report of the vigilance department.
14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the Memo of the 1st respondent in Memo No.AGC01-COOP/35/2019-VIG-II, dated 02.05.2019 enclosing the Vigilance Report No.04 (C.No.843/V&E/D1/2017, dated 10.01.2019) of the 3rd respondent; and the Memo in File No.AGC06- 15/26/2019-VACBC-CCRCS, dated 20.01.2020 of the 2nd respondent and notice Ref.No.9/RPSCBS/2020-1, dated 06.10.2020 of the 6th respondent are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
22nd September, 2022.
Js.
6 RRR,J W.P.No.25565 of 2020 & batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.25565 of 2020 W.P.No.24552 of 2021 W.P.Nos.14121 & 16981 of 2022 22nd September, 2022 Js.