BEJJAM YACOB Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner herein and the brother of the third respondent, one George was a member of Undavilli Adi Andhra Tenants Co-operative Society Ltd., Undavilli (referred to in this judgment as the 'society'), He was allotted Ac, 2.50 cents of land in the year 1934 in Tadepalli village, Guntur Taluk. George died on 24-8-1970 and on his death claiming that the petitioner and his mother and sisters became entitled to succeed as heirs of George under the Indian Succession Act, the petitioner applied for being substituted as a member in the place of bis father George. Accordingly a resolution of the executive committee of the Society was passed on 6-12-1970 and his name was substituted as a member in the records of the society. The third respondent claiming that though George was a member of the society, the land allotted to him was in joint possession and cultivation of himself and his brother and therefore he was entitled to a half share in the land, filed a petition before the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur stating that he was entitled to a share in the land allotted to the deceased member. The Divisional Co-operative Officer called for a report from the Senior Inspector, Labour Contract Co-operative Societies, Guntur, who submitted a report on 8-8-1974. In the report he stated that the third respondent had a right in the land and necessary action may be taken to see that he is duly admitted as a member of the Society and the land has to be divided equally between the petitioner and the third respondent. In view of this report the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur passed an order dated 2-11-1974 directing the Extension Officer (Cooperation) and the person-in-charge of the Society to admit the third respondent as well as the petitioner as members of the society and distribute the land between them equally and report compliance of the matter early.

(2.) The petitioner thereupon filed a suit, O.S. No. 2311 of 1974 D.M.C. Guntur, for an injunction restraining the third respondent and his men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The suit was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the facts attract action under the provisions of see, 61 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction by reason of Section 121 of the Act. On appeal this decision was confirmed by the District Judge, Guntur in A.S. No 121/77. A second appeal by the petitioner to this court was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the order of the Divisional Co-operative Officer directing division of the property between the petitioner and the third respondent.

(3.) I have perused the records produced before me. I find that on a petition by the third respondent, the Divisional Co-operative Officer directed the Inspector to make a report. The Inspector appears to have taken statements from the petitioner as well as the third respondent and submitted his report and on the basis of that report that impugned order was passed.