Heard Mr v. Praveen Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Ms. DARA HARlTll, r KiRAN, AGP FOR RE\ ENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3:- The Court made the following: ORDER T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI{ANTI WRIT PEf,ITION No.7l15 of 2O2L ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief: "...to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamu1 declaring the action of tle 2nd R*pondent in attaching the petitioner's propertA in Sg.No.11O6/EE and 1107/AA of Dokur Village, Andol Mandal, Medak Distict in I.A.No.O8/ 2O18 in ARB.No.333/2O18 uln is no woy concerned with the case and o.s uell as not partA to the proceedings which is illegol, arbitrory, unconstitutional and uioLation of principles of twturdl justice and conseElentlA set aside the same and. to grant such relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Mr. V. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the brottrer of Mogulreddy and that respondent No.3/company hled Arbitration Claim t i I 2 JAK, J ti . P.No.71 15 of 2O2 1 Petition No.333 of 2018 before responderr No.2 against petitioner's brother, who is subscriber rf Chit Fund Scheme and had subscribed to Chit No.V.r rflp-4O lor an amount of Rs.10,OO,OO0/- for a period of [,r ] months with an interest @L8o/o per annum. petitioner,s lt.rtther entered into agreement with respondent No.3. It is further submitted that in the auction conducted ry respondent No.3, petitioner's brother had to forgo i n amount of Rs.3,67,5O0/- out of total amount of Rs.l( ,OO,O0O/_. As per the Chit fund rules, successful bidder ras to furnish security to the satisfaction of reslrr rndsnl No.3. Petitioner's brother paid 33 installm<:r Lts, however, remaining installments were not paid by h.: c. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 prese r Lted a claim petition for Rs.5,56,90O/- before responden . No.2.

4. It is the case of petitioner tfrat resoondent No.2 without considering the submissions ma<l: in I.A.No.Og of 2018 in ARB.No.333 of 2018, passed cr ders directing '-' li- / I JAK, J W.P.No.7l15 of 2O21 peti[ioner's brother to furnish security for an arnount of Rs.5,56,90O/-, failing which, petitioner,s brother,s propert5r would be attached. It is submitted that pursuant to t-l-e order in I.A.No.Og of 201g in ARB.No.333 of 2018, petitioner,s brother,s properties were attached a-long with petitioner's property i.e., agricultura.l lands in Sy.Nos.11O6/EE and, ILOT/AA, of Dokur Village, Andol Manda.l, Medak District.

5. The order of the Depuer Registrar of Chits is filed in the writ petition. on perusar of the order, it is observed that schedule propergr in Sy.No. 1LO6/EE and other survey numbers were attached. Ex.p2 is the copy of I_B Form issued under ROR Act, in which, at column Nos.B and 9, the said property is recorded in the name ol petitioner- A copy ofpattadar passbook is arso annexed to the writ petition. It is observed frorn the record that Sy.Nos.1160 and 1107 pertains to petitioner. On default 4 JAK, J r'.P.No.7l15 of 2021 rn payrnent by petitioner,s brotJrer, petitr( ner,s property cannot be attached unless he stood as sur( by.

6. Counter affidavit is filed by respon: ent No.2. The relevant paragraph of counter allidavit is a I follows: "8. In reply to the averments ma< e in Para No. l0 of the petitioners aflidavit. it is submitted that the list of prohi rited Properties as shou,n in tl.e writ petitio r by the petitioner are deleted from attact: rent and the case closed Or any other orderl; may be passed deemed fit by the Honourable {igh Court, hence, the allegations of the petirj rner herein not correct.',

7. On perusal of contents of counter rffidavit, it is observed that respondent No.2 at prr. .agraph No.g adverted that list of prohibited properties. as shown by petitioner, are deleted from the attachmen and that the case stalds closed. Respondent No.2 also ir:nexed a copy of list of properties that were deleted. On pr rusal of these documents. it is observed that the conter ts of counter affidavit are substantiated. 5 JAK, J W.P.No.7115 of 2O21

8. Having considered tfre entire factual matrix of the case and as petitioner's properties have been deleted from the list of prohibited properties, this Court deems it appropriate that no further adjudication is necessaqr in the subject matter.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. Sd/-B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,HQh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3- Two CD Copies B M/PMK W HIGH COURT DATED:1210912025 ORDER WP.No.7115 of 2021 I ) ) ( * 1ri {i ,)n Lt) ) rjI 1l z .C) :\ CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHCIIJTGOSTS '1r-n J fiJ 3fzfze