T. MEENA KUMARI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in G. O. Rt. No. 108, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and co-operation (Co-op. I) Department dated 28-1-1999, as illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 52 (1) of the A. P. Co-operative societies Rules, 1964 (for short the Rules ). ( 2 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Guntur district Co-operative Marketing Society limited, Guntur, i. e. , the fourth respondent herein had supplied fertilizers to the petitioner society during the years 1967 to 1970 and a sum of Rs. 40,276. 28/- out of the total amount of sale price remained unpaid to the fourth respondent society. The fourth respondent society filed an Arbitration reference in claim No. 719/71-72 dated 22-7-1971 for Rs. 40,276. 28/- against the petitioner, before the Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies, Guntur. The Deputy registrar of Cooperative Societies, Guntur decreed the claim for Rs. 40,276. 28/- with interest at 9% per annum from 2-9-1967 till realization. The fourth respondent filed E. P. before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Guntur for execution of the decree. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Guntur referred the E. P. to the Senior Inspector/sale Officer, District Co-operative marketing Society, Guntur. The sale Officer attached one acre of land with a godown at Tanguturu and sold the same in public auction on 10-11-1982 for a very meagre amount of Rs. 74,000/- and the fifth respondent herein purchased the property in public auction. ( 3 ) IT is further stated that the property worth Rs. 2,00,000/- was sold for meagre amount of Rs. 74,000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an objection petition before the Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies, Guntur and prayed for setting aside the auction sale. The deputy Registrar rejected the objection petition by an order dated 26-5-1983. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision Petition No. 1/85 under Section 77 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative societies, Hyderabad contending that the sale is contrary to Rule 52 (1) of the Rules and that the same is without jurisdiction; The said R. P. No. 1/85 was allowed setting aside the sale dated 10-11-1982. Even though the auction sale was set aside, the fifth respondent illegally continued in possession of the properties and he did not vacate the properties in spite of legal notices issued to him. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner came to know that on 21-12-1989 the respondents 4 and 5 filed Revision Petition before the government of Andhra Pradesh against the orders of the Additional Registrar of co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad wherein the R. P. No. 1/85 filed by the petitioner was allowed and the sale in favour of the fifth respondent was set aside. The Government of Andhra Pradesh allowed the said Revision Petition and set aside the orders In R. P. No. 1/85 vide G. O. Ms. No. 603 dated 27-10-1987 without giving any notice to the petitioner and without making it a party. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 8589/90 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 14-2-1997 set aside the orders in g. O. Ms. No. 603 dated 27-10-1987 and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh disposal after hearing both parties. The first respondent again passed an order in G. O. Rt. No. 108 dated 28-1-1999 setting aside the orders in R. P. No. 1/85 dated 28-4-1986. ( 4 ) THE fourth and fifth respondents filed their counter-affidavits denying the allegations made by the petitioner and contending that the impugned order passed by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 108 dated 28-1-1999 is correct. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the first respondent passed the impugned order without considering rule 52 (1) of the Rules and as per Rule 52 (1) the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Guntur has no jurisdiction to sell the property which is situated in Prakasam district. Rule 52 (1) categorically says that if the defaulter or the property to be proceeded against is situated in a District other than that in which the cause of action arose, the application shall be made to the Registrar of the district in which the cause of action arose who shall transfer the application to the Registrar of the district where the defaulter resided or other property is situated. In view of rule 52 (1) the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Guntur has no jurisdiction to sell the properties of the petitioner. In view of rule 52 (1) the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Guntur has no jurisdiction to sell the properties of the petitioner. To substantiate his contention that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, Guntur is to be declared as null and void as he has no jurisdiction to pass such order, he relied on a judgment in chief Justice A. P. v L. V. A. Dikshitulu, air 1979 SC 193 , wherein it was held at paragraph 23 as follows:"where the decision of a Tribunal is challenged on a pure question of law depending upon interpretation of a constitutional provision, which, if upheld, would make the decision of the Tribunal as having been given by an authority suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction, the decision cannot be sustained by invoking doctrine either of res judicata or estoppel. " ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the fifth respondent contended that originally the property was situated in Guntur District in the year 1971 and after formation of prakasam District in 1972 the property in dispute has come under the jurisdiction of prakasam District. The learned Counsel has further argued that the petitioner participated in the arbitration proceedings and the award was passed on 20-7-1976 and hence he cannot raise the question of jurisdiction now. In support of his contention he relied on decisions in Kiran Singh v chaman Paswam, AIR 1954 SC 340 (Vol 41, C. N. 82), and State of U. P. v Janki saran, AIR 1973 SC 2071 . ( 7 ) RULE 52 (1) of the Rules reads as follows:"any decree holder may apply to the registrar of the district in which the cause of action arises for the execution of his decree after depositing the necessary costs on a scale fixed in this behalf. The registrar shall, in case where the application for the recovery of any amount due under a decree or order of the Civil Court, apply to the Civil Court which passed the decree or order for the transfer to him of the said decree or order and the records specified in Rule 6 of Order XXI in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure and on receipt of such application the Civil Court shall transfer them to the Registrar of the district. Where, in connection with the proceedings on an application under Section 70 of the act, any person requires the issue of any process, or objects to any process issued or proposed to be issued or requires the adjournment of any proceedings or objects to any order passed, he shall pay such fees as may be fixed in this behalf. If the defaulter resides or the property to be proceeded against is situated in a district other than that in which the cause of action arose, the application shall be made to the Registrar of the district in which the cause of action arose who shall transfer the application to the Registrar of the district where the defaulter or other property is situated. " ( 8 ) SUB-RULE 14 (1) of Rule 52 entitles a person to file an objection petition before the Sale Officer to set aside the sale and sub-rule 14 (1) of Rule 52 also entitles a person to file the objection petition before the Registrar of the district to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. ( 9 ) THE material annexed to the writ petition shows that the petitioner has filed his objection petition under sub-rule 14 (i) to set aside the sale before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Guntur and the same has been rejected. But however, it has to be seen that as per the proviso to rule 52 (1) of the Rules, if the defaulter resides or the property to be proceeded against is situated in a district other than that in which the cause of action arose, the application shall be made to the Registrar of the district in which the cause of action arose who shall transfer the application to the Registrar of the district where the defaulter resides or other property is situated. " ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner subjected himself to the jurisdiction of Guntur district. But however, the fact remains that the arbitration proceedings are made on 20-7-1976. But however after formation of prakasam District the property has become the part of the Prakasam District. Even the respondent has made an application before the Registrar of Guntur District. But however, the fact remains that the arbitration proceedings are made on 20-7-1976. But however after formation of prakasam District the property has become the part of the Prakasam District. Even the respondent has made an application before the Registrar of Guntur District. As per the proviso to sub-rule 1 of Rule 52 the Registrar of Guntur District ought to have transferred the application to the Registrar of the prakasam district where the defaulter that is the petitioner resides or the property is situated. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner as well as the property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the prakasam District. Therefore, a duty is cast on the Registrar of Guntur District to transfer the application to the Registrar of the Prakasam District for necessary action. But in this case it has to be seen that the Registrar of the Guntur District has assumed the jurisdiction and proceeded further in issuing the further proceedings to the Sale Officer for the sale of the properties situated in the Prakasam District. In view of the above proviso of Law it has to be held that the observations made in the revision petition also are against the provisions contained under Rule 52 (1)of the rules. ( 11 ) IT is also to be further observed that the petitioner also has filed his objections before the Registrar of Guntur bringing to his notice that he has no jurisdiction and the same has been rejected against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional registrar of Co-operative Societies, andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same has been allowed and the respondents have filed revision before the State government and it is also to be noted that the first respondent has also took the view that the Registrar of Guntur has got the power to proceed with the property situated at Prakasam district in view of the proviso contained in sub-rule 1 of rule 52. It has to be held that the Registrar of Guntur District has no power whatsoever to proceed with the matter and he ought to have transferred the application to the registrar of Prakasam District where the defaulter resided and the property is situated. It has to be held that the Registrar of Guntur District has no power whatsoever to proceed with the matter and he ought to have transferred the application to the registrar of Prakasam District where the defaulter resided and the property is situated. ( 12 ) UNDER the above circumstances, it has to be held that the Registrar of guntur District has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter for the sale of the property. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.