M CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-35
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 31,1992

M.CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANAK LAL ADVOCATE VS. PREM CHAND SINGHVI [REFERRED TO]
G SARANA VS. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

POTHULA RANG RAO VS. ONGOLE TOBACCO PROCESSING [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
POTHULA RANGA RAO VS. ONGOLE TABACCO [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-51] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Immanent Panduranga Rao, J. - (1.)These two Writ Appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.366 of 1980 granting a writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the first respondent dated 29-12-79 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 11-9-79 in C.E.P. No.252 of 78-79.
(2.)We shall adopt the ranking of the parties as in the Writ Petition. The petitioner borrowed Rs.l 1,900/- from the Gudur Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Gudur in 1955-56 payable in 180 monthly instalments of Rs.100-46 ps. each. As he failed to repay the loan, the third respondent initiated proceedings under Section 61 of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was referred to an arbitrator under Section 62 of the Act and a decree was passed for Rs.12,938-39 ps. Thereupon the third respondentinitiated execution proceed ings for recovery of Rs.16,228-60 ps. The houseof the petitioner was put to auctionon 16-3-76. As the highestbid amount was only Rs.22,000/- which was considered to be low, the bid was rejected. On 10-8-79 the auction was held again and the sale was knocked down in favour of the fourth respondent for Rs.30,000/-. An objection petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 52(14) of the Rules on the grounds that the sale was vitiated by reason of the inadequacy of the price fetched in the auction and due publicity was not given. That objection petition was rejected on 11-9-79 and the sale was confirmed. Sale Certificate was issued to the fourth respondent on 22-1-80. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the first respondent under Section 77 of the Act which was dismissed. Challenging that order, the Writ Petition was filed.
(3.)The learned single Judge upheld the submission of the Writ Petitioner that the action of the second respondent in functioning both as sale officer and the Registrar of the district was without jurisdiction, but, rejected the submission of the petitioner that the price of the property fetched was unreasonable or unduly low. However, having regard to the circumstance that the value of the rupee has considerably gone down over the years since fourth respondent had purchased the property, the learned single Judge quashed the order of the first respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing within three months from the date of receipt of the order with the first respondent a sum of Rs.61,500/-, permitting the fourth respondent to withdraw the same.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.