APHC010113252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH-^ AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWOTHOUSANDAND 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 Guntur District, AP. Secretariat, Amaravati, 3. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kuchumanchivari Agraharam, Sahakara Bhavanam Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. Amalapuram, Konaseema/East ...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 W.P.No.4029/2024 pending disposal of the above writ appeal. dt. 18-02-2025 passed in 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 Agriculture and Cooperation Department Guntur District, AP 3. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kuchumanchivar i Agraharam, Sahakara Bhavanam Amalapuram, Konaseema/East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. secretary Secretariat, Amaravati, ...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 (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 199/2025 along with WRIT APPEAL No.200/2025 Between: Lakkimsetty Suranna ...APPELLANT AND M/s Tatipaka Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit 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. ...RESPONDENT(S) 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, 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 upon 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 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. case 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 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 re 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 enumerated in Section 60 of the Act. as 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 ofAndhra 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 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. or 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 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 as 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 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. was 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 DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) M/s. Tatipaka Primary Cooperative Credit Society Limited, No.3746, Office at D.No.5-341 Near Pedda Vantena, Tatipaka, Razole Mandal, Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Agriculture Konaseema/ East 2. The Principal secretary Agriculture and Cooperation Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District, AP The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kuchumanchivari Agraharam, Sahakara Bhavanam Amalapuram, Konaseema/East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. One CC to Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, Advocate [OPUC]^ One CC to Sri Srinivas Basava, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUTf Two CD Copies 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 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