Tumati Vinayakudu v. The AP State Financial Corporation
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
appearing for the respondent, the writ petition is disposed of holding
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Notification published by the respondent corporation in Saakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper dated 23.10.2008 inviting sealed tenders-cum--bids in so far as agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.00 situated in Sy.No.452/1 of West Veerayapalem village, Kurichedu Mandalam, PRakasam District shown at item No.3 under additional security is concerned as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:K.ARUNA Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the impugned notification published by the respondent Corporation in Saakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper on 23.10.2008 inviting sealed tenders-cum-bids insofar as agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.00 situated in Survey No.452/1 of West Veerayapalem Village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District, shown at item No.3 under additional security, is concerned, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’). It appears, the complaint of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.06 cents situated in Survey No.452/1 of West Veerayapalem Village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District having purchased the same from it’s lawful owner by virtue of sale deed bearing document No.1610 of 2001, dated 22.06.2001.
According to the petitioner, the respondent Corporation distributed pamphlets on 20.12.2008 wherein it was mentioned that it invited sealed tenders-cum-bids and that it has already got published notification in Saakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper on 23.10.2008. Further, he is not aware of the fact that his vendor has mortgaged this property as a collateral security for the loans obtained by some third parties. Therefore, even otherwise, the notice published in the Telugu Daily Newspaper shows that the Corporation is proceeding under Section 29 of the Act, according to which, the Corporation cannot proceed against the properties of the guarantor or the purchaser of the property from such guarantor. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, stated that the Corporation could not have proceeded with under Section 29 of the Act in respect of the property of the petitioner i.e.
Operative part
Acs.2.00 of land situated in Survey No.452/1 of West Veerayapalem Village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District shown as item No.3, published in the notification in Saakshi Telugu Daily newspaper on 23.10.2008 and, therefore, the impugned notification is not valid insofar as the said item. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the writ petition is disposed of holding that insofar as item No.3, which relates to the property of the petitioner i.e. Acs.2.00 of land situated in Survey No.452/1 of West Veerayapalem Village, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasam District, is concerned, the impugned notification is illegal and, therefore, the same is set aside. However, this will not preclude the Corporation from proceeding against the property in question as per law. No costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J 24th DECEMBER, 2008 Note: issue copy in three days. B/o
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appearing for the respondent, the writ petition is disposed of holding
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; State Finance Corporation Act, 1951; Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.