'I i APHC010681732015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21897 OF 2015 Between: M/s. Sai Boda Hotels, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri B. Ravi Raj, s/o Chidambaram, Hindu, aged 40 years. Business, H. No. 11-5-431, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner AND 1. The District Consumer Forum-ll, Vijayawada. Krishna District. State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Dist Collector Krishna District Vijayawada. 3. The Tahsildar Vijayawada Urban Vijayawada Krishna District. 4. Consumer Guidance Society, Representing Koorella Ratna, d/o Late Venkata Rao, r/o D.No.TF-3, Abhishek Apartments, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. Krishna District. State of Andhra Pradesh. 5. M/s Tulluri Chit Fund Pvt Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director Tulluri Prasanna Sarala Devi, r/o D.No.29-9-3, 2nd floor, Nakkal Road, Govindarajulunaidu St., Vijayawada. State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. M/s Tulluri Finance, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, rep. by its Managing Partner Tulluri Prasanna Sarala Devi, r/o D.No.29-9-3, 2nd floor, Nakkal Road, Govindarajulunaidu St., Vijayawada. State of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Tulluri Prasanna Sarala Devi w/o T S V Prasad, r/o D.No.29-9-3, 2nd floor, Nakkal Road, Govindarajulunaidu St., Vijayawada. State of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to E.P No.2 of 2009 in CC No. 104 of 2008, on the file of the 1st respondent The District Consumer Forum-ll, Vijayawada, Krishna District, in passing Orders dt.23-11-2009, directing the respondent no.2 to attach the properties shown in E.P No.2 of 2009 and the subsequent orders of attachment made by the respondents 2 and 3 over the property i.e.. All that Flat in fourth floor in an extent of 704 sft., of building bearing D.No.27-19-29 & 27-7-86, of Revenue Ward No.9, Block No.8, NTS Nos.346, 347, Municipal Ward No.21, Governorpet, Vijayawada, by way of Attachment Warrant dt. 17-10-2012, published in The Krishna District Gazette Issue No. 19/2012, dt. 17-10-2012, standing in the name of the petitioner, as illegal, unlawful, untenable, unsustainable, and against to the provisions of law and Principles of Natural Justice, in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, by dismissing the E.P No.2 of 2009 in C.C. No. 104 of 2008, the District Consumer Forum- 11, Vijayawada, Krishna District, by consequently directing the respondents 2 & 3 to cancel the Attachment Warrant dt. 17-10-2012, over the property above mentioned. lA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 28203 OF 2015 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 f W to pass Interim Orders of Suspension suspending the orders dt.23-11- 2009, passed by the 1st respondent/The District Consumer Forum, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP 28204 OF 2015 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 issue Interim Orders of Stay of all further proceedings of the notice of attachment dt. 17-10-2012 issued by the respondent no.2 on behalf of respondent no.3 as per The Krishna District Gazette Issue No. 19/2012, dt.17- 10-2012, over the property i.e.. All that Flat in fourth floor in an extent of 704 sft., of building bearing D.No.27-19-29 & 27-7-86, of Revenue Ward No.9, Block No.8, NTS Nos.346, 347, Municipal Ward No.21, Governorpet, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI MASTAN VALI SHAIK The Court made the following order: APHC010681732015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT PETITION NO: 21897/2015 Between: ...PETITIONER M/s. Sai Boda Hotels, Hyderabad. AND The Dist Consumer Forum-ll Vijayawada and six Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.MASTAN VALI SHAIK 2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 17.06.2025 P.C. Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 23.11.2009 passed by respondent no. 1-District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada, Krishna District in E.P.No.2 of 2009 in C.C.No.104 of 2008 whereby and whereunder respondent no.2- The District CoHecto; , Vijayawada was directed to attach the properties and to the subsequent attachment orders passed by respondent no.2-The District Collector and respondent no.3-The Tahsildar, Vijayawada ‘Vi.>(PMo.21S97of2015 2 Urban dated 17.10.2012 published in the Krishna District Gazette issue No.19/2012. 2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that for realization of the mortgage debt borrowed by respondent nos. 5 to 7, the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.140 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Vijayawada, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,35,43,333/- with subsequent interest. That the said suit was ended in compromise before Lok Adalat, Vijayawada in Lok Adalat Case No.556 of 2008 and an award dated 16.06.2008 was passed. As per which, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 agreed to transfer two properties i.e. a flat in fourth floor of building bearing Door No.27-7-86, Governorpet, Vijayawada and other building property bearing Door No.31-4-10, G.P.Rao Street, Maruthinagar, Vijayawada in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent nos.5 to 7 conveyed the said two properties in favour of the petitioner by way of execution of registered Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.4277 of 2010, dated 28.08.2010 of the District Registrar, Vijayawada. That possession of the property was delivered and eversince the petitioner has been continuing in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties with absolute powers of disposition. That thereafter, the petitioner learnt that respondent no.4 representing K.Ratna obtained order dated 28.04.2009 in a consumer case vide C.C.No.l04 of 2008 against Tulluri Investments, rep. by ^CJei‘RCJ M./(PMo.21897of2015 3 its Proprietrix Tulluri Prasanna Sarala Devi/the respondent no.7, whereby the respondent no.7 was directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,08,000/- with interest to the complainant K.Ratna. It is further stated in the writ petition that in pursuance of the said orders, an execution petition was filed by respondent no.4 against Tulluri Investments in E.P.No.2 of 2009 seeking attachment of four properties including the two properties purchased by the petitioner in pursuance of Lok Adalat Award vide registered document No.4277 of 2010. That though the JDr therein filed counter bringing it to the notice that the properties covered under the registered document No.42/7 of 2010 are not in the name of Tulluri Investments and they are in the name of Tulluri Chit Funds & Tulluri Finance and that those properties were already sold to the petitioner pursuant to the award passed by Lok Adalat, the District Consumer Forum, allowed the E.P. and directed respondent no.2 to attach the properties mentioned in the E.P. That immediately after coming to know of the attachment order, the petitioner filed claim petition vide EASR No.584 of 2012 in E.P.No.2 of 2009 and the Consumer Forum vide order darted 30.04.2012 returned the petition holding that the same is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and the petitioner has to approach appropriate Forum. That the petitioner preferred appeal against the said orders and the State Commission confirmed the orders passed by Consumer Forum directing the petitioner to approach .W(PMo.21897 of2015 4 competent civil Court with further direction that the orders passed by Consumer Forum shall be kept in abeyance during that period. It is further stated in the writ petition that pursuant to the directions of the State Commission, the petitioner filed claim petition and the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada returned the application stating that the same is not maintainable. In the meanwhile, the District Collector, Vijayawada, invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, issued orders of attachment, which was published in District Gazette dated 17.10.2012 stating that the property conveyed to the writ petition under registered document was attached. That the orders passed by the Consumer Forum and that of respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Revenue Recovery Act are not maintainable, since the property, at no point of time, stood in the name of Tulluri Investments, as contended by respondent no.4. That the petitioner submitted a requisition dated 23.03.2015 to respondent no.3-Tahsildar to cancel the attachment, but there was no response and hence another requisition dated 27.03.2015 was submitted to respondent no.2-District collector, enclosing all necessary documents, to that also there was no response. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another requisition dated 10.04.2015 to respondent no.3-Tahsildar, enclosing all necessary documents. In response to the same, respondent no.3 sent a notice dated 20.06.2015, directing the petitioner to furnish details of suit number and its stage, or else •.W(p.^o.21897of2015 5 it will be construed that no case is filed and further action will be initiated as per available records. Assailing the same being unlawful, arbitrary, besides being contrary to law, the writ petition is filed. 3. The respondent no.4 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the petition inter alia contending that the writ petition is not maintainable for not availing the effective alternative remedy of revision available under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act. That the claim of the petitioner based on sham promissory note is against the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and alleged mode of huge cash payment is not permissible under Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961. That the alleged charge over schedule property is hit by Section 125 of Companies Act, 1956 as it was not registered with Registrar of Companies as mandated under Section 125 of Companies Act and further the petitioner, which appears to be unregistered partnership firm, is debarred from suing under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that respondent no.4 was the prized subscriber of the chit conducted by respondent no.5 and she was induced by respondent no.5 to deposit the prize money in the investment scheme luring her to pay higher rate of interest and accordingly she deposited the prize amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 51 months, for which respondent no.5 issued deposit certificate in the name of respondent no.6- ^CCJ ^3 V.3(p.3fo.21897 of2015 6 Tulluri Investments, representing that it is part and parcel of respondent no.5- Tulluri Chit Fund (P) Limited and an endorsement to the same effect was made on the face of the deposit certificate. That respondent no.5 issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.8,08,G00/- being the maturity value of the deposit, which, on presentation, was returned with endorsement "insufficient funds". Pursuantly, she filed Consumer complaint vide C.C.No.l04 of 2008 and the same was adjudicated upon by the District consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada directing M/s. Tulluri Investments to pay the amount together with interest. That for realization of the amount, she filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.2 of 2009, wherein the subject property was attached and the said property was ordered to be auctioned for realization of the due amount. That the claim petition filed by the writ petitioner vide EA SR No.584 of 2012 was returned by the Consumer Forum granting liberty to approach proper forum/court for redressal. The said order was confirmed by State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal vide F.A.No.469 of 2013. It is further stated in the counter that the suit proceedings vide O.S.No.140 of 2006 are collusive, since the same was allegedly filed for realization of the debt borrowed by respondent no.7 in his individual capacity and further the pronote does not contain any details as to mortgage of the subject property and therefore, the transaction covered under the said suit is collusive and thus, the transaction made by respondent nos. 5 to 7 in favour ^CJ ^ ‘KCJ ‘.W(p.9io.21897of2015 7 of the petitioner is sham. Further, the petitioner did not avail the alternative remedy of revision as provided under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. That the deposit certificate clearly envisages that Tulluri Investment is a part and parcel of respondent no.5-Tulluri Chit Funds Private Limited and therefore, the authorities are entitled to execute the award passed under Consumer Protection Act in terms of Revenue Recovery Act and accordingly they issued the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri P.Rajesh learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Mastan Vati Shaik, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 5. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel, in elaboration would contend that since the subject property belongs to respondent nos.5 & 6 viz.. M/s.Tulluri Chit Funds Private Limited and M/s.Tulluri Finance; the same cannot be attached and auctioned for realization of the amount covered under the orders passed by Consumer Forum against M/s.Tulluri Investments. He would further contend that though the subject property does not belong to M/s.Tulluri Investments and moreover the same was conveyed to the petitioner pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award whereby the suit filed by the petitioner for realization of amount borrowed by respondent nos.5 to 7 by creating equitable mortgage over the subject property much prior to the date of publication of Gazette publication, the respondent no.2 attached the same ^CJ ei 3C7 Vl.^(P.9io.21897of2015 8 even without enquiring about the fundamental thing as to who was the owner of the property as on that date. He would further submit that the petitioner submitted requisitions to respondent nos.2 and 3 bringing all the necessary facts by submitting all the necessary documents, however, respondent no.3 issued a notice dated 20.06.2015 directing the writ petitioner to place all necessary documents, which is unlawful and unsustainable. He would further contend that the order passed by District Consumer Forum in E.P.No.2 of 2009 in C.C.No.104 of 2008 as well as the order passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 in pursuance of the orders of the District Consumer Forum in attaching the subject property, are highly illegal and unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Sri Mastan Vali Shaik, learned counsel for respondent no.4, in elaboration would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner did not avail the effective alternative remedy of preferring a revision against the orders passed by the State Commission. He would further contend that the deposit certificate issued in token of the deposit made by respondent no.4 conspicuously mentions that Tulluri Investments is a part and parcel of respondent no.5-Tulluri Chit Fund Private Limited and further the cheque issued in favour of respondent no.4 for maturity value of the deposit was drawn by respondent no.5 and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that r ^CJei^RCJ M.J(p.0^o.21897of2015 9 since the property does not belong to Tulluri Investments, the same cannot be attached and auctioned for realization of the amount ordered against it, is unsustainable and is liable to be rejected. He would further contend that the promissory note covered under the suit proceedings is created with a mala fide intention of evading and avoiding the payment of matured deposit amounts to depositors. He would further contend that the pronote does not specify the particulars of equitable mortgage alleged to have been created over the subject property and moreover the pronote shows that the amount covered under it was borrowed by husband of respondent no.7 for his personal needs, who has nothing to do with either of the firms i.e. respondent nos. 5 & 6 and this itself shows that the suit proceedings were engineered to keep the subject property out of the reach of depositors. He would further contend that the order passed by Consumer Forum is to be executed under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act and accordingly the respondent no.2 attached the subject property for realization of the orders passed in C.C.No.104 of 2008. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The material would indicate that for realization of the amount covered under the cheque representing maturity value of the deposit made in •.WV.^o.21897of2015 10 Talluri Investments, to which respondent no.7 is the proprietrix; the respondent no.4 filed a Consumer Complaint vide C.C.No.l04 of 2008 and the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada passed orders on 28.09.2009 directing Talluri Investments to pay a sum of Rs.8,08,000/- together with subsequent interest. For realization of the amount so awarded, respondent no.4 filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.2 of 2009 and the said Execution Petition was allowed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada directing respondent no.2-District Collector, Vijayawada to attach the property mentioned in the E.P. and recover the E.P.Amount. Accordingly, the said property was attached by invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act by way of publishing in The Krishna District Gazette, dated 17.10.2012. 9. The property covered under E.P.No.2 of 2009 referred to above and the property that was attached as referred to supra is part of the property covered under Registered Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 28.08.2010. 10. The said registered agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney spells out that respondent no.7, who is Managing Director and Managing Partner of respondent nos.5 and 6 respectively, stood as a guarantor for the debt borrowed by her husband from father of the petitioner under a promissory note. For due discharge of the said debt, an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds was created over the properties mentioned in ^C3 eZ: ^3 '.W(P.3fo.21897 of 2015 11 the EP and some other properties. Thereafter, suit for realization of the debt covered under the promissory note was filed, vide O.S.No.l40 of 2006, wherein a compromise was effected between the parties before Lok Adalat and accordingly a Lok Adalat Award was passed. As per the said award, the defendants therein agreed to execute registered conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff therein (writ petitioner herein) in respect of the subject property towards full and final settlement of the suit claim. In fulfillment of the said Lok Adalat Award, the document bearing No.4277 of 2010, dated 28.08.2010 came to be executed. 11. The material would further disclose that the petitioner filed claim petition vide EASR No.584 of 2012 in E.P.No.2 of 2009 to raise the attachment over the subject property. The said application was returned by the District Consumer Forum, Vijayawada, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach proper Forum/Court for redressal as law permits. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said orders vide F.A.No.469 of 2013 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Commission, while keeping in abeyance the orders passed by the District forum, granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the District Court and obtain necessary orders. The material would also indicate that the petitioner filed claim petition before the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada under Order XXI, Rule-58 and Sections 47 and 151 .W(P.!N'o.21897of2015 12 A J f of Code of Civil Procedure for declaring the attachment orders passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada in E.P.No.2 of 2009 in C.C.No.l04 of 2008 as invalid and not maintainable. The said claim petition was returned with an office objection as to maintainability stating that the petitioner has to file suit for declaration. It seems that the petitioner did not take any steps for getting the said claim petition numbered nor did challenge the said return endorsement as per law. 12. The order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada directing respondent no.2-District Collector to attach the subject property and the consequent attachment warrant dated 17.10.2012 of the District collector, Krishna District issued under Revenue Recovery Act are assailed in the writ petition. 13. In K. Nagaraja Gupta vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and other^, a coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows: 3. It is to be borne in mind that the proceedings of the Revenue Recovery Act, are anaiogous to several rules under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and when a claim petition is preferred by a third party objecting the sale, it is the bounden duty of the authority conducting the sale to enquire into the said claim petition. There is no option for the authority as to whether the said claim petition can be entertained or not once the claim is preferred, the same has to be enquired into and adjudicated upon as it affects property rights." The pleadings, submissions as well as the material placed on 14. record would further disclose that the petitioner submitted requisitions to \ 1992 see Online AP 261 '.W(p.:N'o.21897ofZ015 13 respondent nos.2 and 3/Revenue authorities, requesting them to cancel sale of the subject property, which was attached by way of publication in Gazette dated 17.10.2012 bringing it to their notice that the said property was registered in favour of the petitioner pursuant to a Lok Adalat Award. In response, the respondent no.3-Tahsildar sent a notice vide RR Act 83 of 2010, dated 20.06.2015, directing the petitioner to submit the suit number and its stage or else further action would be initiated as per available records. No material is placed on record to show as to whether the petitioner had submitted the information as called for in the above said notice. 14. Since the proceedings of the Revenue Recovery Act are analogous to several rules under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as held in the decision referred to above, instead of going into merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a claim petition furnishing necessary information and raising all the grounds that are raised herein so as to enable the Revenue Recovery Court to adjudicate upon the claim so made by the petitioner. 15. 15. In the above view of the matter, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a claim petition within four (04) weeks from this day before the District Collector within whose jurisdiction the subject property at present lies and on filing of such claim petition, the District Collector shall entertain the same, enquire into 0{CJ ‘RCJ ‘.W(pMo.21897of2015 14 genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner after giving an opportunity and then decide the matter. Until determination of the said proceedings on claim petition to be filed, the interim order dated 22.07.2015 which was made absolute on 03.11.2016 shall be in force. In the event of failure of the submit claim application, the authorities are at liberty to proceed the petitioner to further under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U. SPJDEVi TRAR ASSISTANT RE^ OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The District Consumer Forum-ll, Vijayawada. Krishna District. State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector Krishna District Vijayawada. The Tahsildar Vijayawada Urban Vijayawada Krishna District. Consumer Guidance Society, Representing Koorella Ratna, d/o Late Venkata 3. 4. Rao r/o D.No.TF-3 Apartments, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. Krishna District. State of Andhra Abhishek Pradesh. The Managing Director M/s Tulluri Chit Fund Pvt Ltd, Tulluri Prasanna Sarala Devi, r/o D.No.29-9-3, 2nd floor, Nakkal Road, Govindarajulunaidu St., Vijayawada. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Managing Partner, M/s Tulluri Finance, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Tulluri Prasanna Sarala Devi, r/o D.No.29-9-3, 2nd floor, Nakkal Road, Govindarajulunaidu St., Vijayawada. State of Andhra Pradesh. 5. 6. 7. One CC to Sri. P Rajesh Babu Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri. Mastan Vali Shaik Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Three CD Copies 10. GSC HIGH COURT DATED; 17/06/2025 ORDER WPNO. 21897 OF 2015 f 24JUL 2025 j mntSectiQc 'sms2^ €: o» DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS