WP/15408/2006 of S.Dusyant Reddy, Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Coop. on 29 December 2006

:: JUDGMENT ::

Counsel for the petitionersCounsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

Sri Narasimha Murthy Gollamudi

Government Pleader for Cooperation

29.12.2006

Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ

The petitioners who claim to be members of Defence HousingCooperative Society (for short, ‘the society’) have filed this petition for grant ofa declaration that action of respondents in not taking steps to restore LandGrabbing Case No.116 of 1998 on the file of Special Court constituted underthe Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 is illegal. Theyhave further prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to take stepsfor restoration of the above case.

In the affidavit filed by him, petitioner No.1 – S. Dusyant Reddy hasaverred that former Secretary and President of the society Shri C.T. Ramulugrabbed 248 square yards of valuable land of the society comprised inSurvey No.218/1 by creating a fictitious sale deed in favour of his wife Smt. C.Lalitha by showing the same as land in Survey No.237. He has furtheraverred that the then person in-charge of the society filed Land GrabbingCase No.116 of 1998 before the Special Court, but after getting himself re-elected as President of the society, Shri C.T. Ramulu managed the passingof resolution for withdrawal of the land grabbing case and on the basis of thepetition filed for that purpose, the Special Court granted leave to the societyon 22.11.2002 to withdraw the case. According to him, the petitioners issuednotices dated 29.03.2006 and 12.06.2006 to the respondents for restorationof the land grabbing case, but no action has been taken by the society in thatrespect.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.In our opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed not only on theground of laches, inasmuch as, there is time gap of almost six years betweendismissal of the land grabbing case as withdrawn and filing of the writpetition, but also because, the petitioners have not shown as to how a writ ismaintainable against respondent No.4 which is a society registered under theSocieties Registration Act and how an order could be passed at the back ofSmt.C. Lalitha and Shri C.T. Ramulu, who were parties to the land grabbingcase.

The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition do not show that the society is a creature of statute or is engaged in the discharge of any sovereign or governmental function or it has anything todo with the discharge of public law obligation by the State and its agencies.Therefore, a writ cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We are further of the view that the order passed by the Special Court on22-11-2002 cannot be recalled or set aside because neither of thebeneficiaries of that order has been impleaded as party to the writ petition.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.19198 and19950 of 2006 filed by the petitioners are also dismissed.

G.S.SINGHVI, CJ

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J