L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from alienating, transferring and conveying plot Nos. 15-A and 15-B of Sy. Nos 125 and 126 of yousufguda Village, Golconda Mandal, respectively, registered in the names of respondents 2 and 3 admeasuring 300 sq. yards each, and for other ancillary reliefs.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was in employment of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st respondent is a House Building Society, constituted for the benefit of Members of parliament and Legislative Assembly hailing from the State. In April 1994, the government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders transferring an extent of 77 Acres 35 guntas in Sy. No. 125 and 126 of Yousufguda village, at a nominal cost in favour of the 1st respondent. The land was divided into plots after providing roads and open places. Layout was approved by the competent authority.

( 3 ) PETITIONER was enrolled as one of the members of the society. He was allotted plot no. 15 and a sale deed was executed in his favour on 31-10-1994. He was delivered possession of the said plot. He intended to construct a house on the plot and requested the 1st respondent to issue a no Objection certificate , so as to secure permission for construction from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Such a certificate is said to have been issued on 5-3-2001. He, however, noticed that his plot number was mentioned as 15b, whereas the one mentioned in the sale deed is 15.

( 4 ) ON verification from the office of the 1st respondent, he came to know that the 1st respondent had executed a Deed of cancellation on 31-12-1997, cancelling the sale deed executed in his favour on 31-10-1994 and the entire plot No. 15 was conveyed to the 2nd respondent, through a document dated 9-10-2000 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. 00. Within 2 years, the 1st respondent cancelled the sale deed dated 9-10-1998 through a Deed of cancellation dated 19-10-2000. Thereafter, plot No. 5 was divided into two parts and through sale deed dated 18-10-2001, plot no. 15a was transferred in favour of the 2nd respondent; and through another sale deed, plot No. 15b was transferred in favour of the petitioner.

( 5 ) PETITIONER contends that the 1st respondent is a state within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India since the entire land was made over to it by the government on a nominal consideration and that its members, with few exceptions, are sitting and former legislators. He contends that the whole action of the 1 st respondent smacks of arbitrariness and suffers from illegalities. It is his case that at no point of time, he was put on notice and the present state of affairs is the result of unilateral decisions taken from time to time.

( 6 ) THE 1st respondent filed a counter- affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was not eligible to be admitted as member. The deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is said to have issued direction to it to cancel the transfer in favour of the members who are not former or present legislators; with a threat of initiation of supersession of the committee. It claims that it is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution. It contends that the plots were to be allotted only to the elected representatives and not to others; in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 694 dated 5-12-1995. Cancellation of sale deed and subsequent actions are sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to be admitted to be the member of the society. Reference is made to the proceedings dated 22-1-2001 issued by the Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies directing the 1st respondent to cancel the 8 allotments made to the ineligible members.

( 7 ) NOTICES were ordered to all the respondents while admitting the writ petition. By the time the writ petition came up for hearing, notices sent to respondents 2 and 3 were returned unserved. Therefore, this court has directed service of notice once again thr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document