AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
10.1 That, the impugned order dated 07.02.12, annexure P-1 be quashed and in consequences the order dated 19.11.09, annexure P-7 and order dated 30.08.10, annexure P-8 be quashed.
10.2 That, the order dated 29.12.10, annexure P-9 passed by Registrar Co-operative society be restored and the respondent No.4 be directed to decide the case on the issues framed by it.
10.3 That, any other writ/order/direction, deem fit, in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
10.4 To award the cost.
2) Facts of present case are that Plot No. B-75, situated at Rohinipuram, Raipur was allotted to respondent No. 5 by the petitioner–Society under a conditional sale deed that construction work must be started and completed within period of three years. In the bye-laws of Society, it is provided that if the allottee fails to complete the construction work within period of three years, the allotment would be canceled. Respondent No. 5 failed to complete construction work within period of three years and thereafter, notices were issued from time to time and thereafter petitioner herein canceled the allotment vide resolution dated 14.11.1999 and registered notice in this regard was sent to respondent No. 5 on 11.1.2000.
3) As registered sale-deed was executed in favor of respondent No.5 on 23.10.1986, therefore a dispute was raised before the Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society for cancellation of sale-deed under Section 64 of the C.G. Cooperative Society Act, 1960 [for short “The Act of 1960”]. In the dispute, it was pleaded that respondent No. 5 failed to complete the construction work within period of three years despite repeated reminders and vide resolution dated 14.11.1999, the allotment has already been canceled and registered notice in this regard was sent through post on 11.1.2000. In prayer clause, petitioner sought relief with regard to cancellation of sale-deed dated 23.10.1986 pertaining to plot No. B-75 ad-measuring 4,000 sq.ft. Written statement was filed by respondent No. 5 and thereafter, application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was moved on 2.11.2004. Deputy Registrar vide order dated 13.5.2005, while holding that Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction to entertain the petition, rejected the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The said authority vide order dated 19.11.2009, dismissed the dispute holding that Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to cancel the sale-deed.
4) The said order was assailed by the petitioner by filing appeal before Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society and same was dismissed. Thereafter, second appeal was preferred by petitioner before Registrar, Cooperative Society and same was allowed vide order dated 29.12.2010 holding that order passed by Deputy Registrar dated 19.11.2009 was barred by principle of res judicata. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 5 before the Cooperative Department, State of Chhattisgarh and same was allowed vide order dated 7.12.2012.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner–Society allotted the Plot No. B-75 ad-measuring 4,000 sq.ft. in favor of respondent No. 5 and registered sale-deed was executed on 23.10.1986. He further submits that according to the bye-laws of Society, respondent No. 5 was under obligation to complete construction work within period of three years but she failed, therefore after service of notices, resolution was passed by the Society to cancel the order of allotment. He contends that Board of Directors canceled the order of allotment of Plot on 14.11.1999 and it was duly informed to respondent No. 5 through registered post on 11.1.2000. He further contends that as there is dispute between a cooperative society and its member, therefore, dispute was maintainable before the Deputy Registrar ; initially, Deputy Registrar held that dispute filed by petitioner was maintainable but later on, without assigning sufficient reasons, dispute was dismissed on the ground that cooperative courts have no jurisdiction to cancel or set aside sale-deed and such jurisdiction lies with the civil courts. He argues that the second appeal preferred by petitioner was allowed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society vide order dated 29.12.2010, but said order has been canceled by respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 7.12.2012. He prays to set aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 and restore the order dated 29.12.2010.
6) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the dispute was raised by petitioner before Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society under the provisions of Section 64 of The Act of 1960 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 23.10.1986, therefore the authority concerned rightly held that dispute was not maintainable. He contends that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
8) In the present case, respondent No. 5 purchased a Plot through registered sale-deed dated 23.10.1986 from petitioner–Society. There was a condition in the bye-laws of Society to the effect that the allottee has to raise construction within period of three years. Respondent No. 5 failed to raise construction within the stipulated period, therefore a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of Society and order of allotment was canceled in the meeting held on 14.11.1999. Respondent No. 5 was duly communicated through registered post on 11.1.2000 in this regard. Respondent No. 5 filed written statement and later on, moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the dispute raised by petitioner before Deputy Registrar was not maintainable. The authority concerned vide order dated 13.05.2005 rejected the said application but later on, vide order dated 19.11.2009, dismissed the dispute inter-alia on the ground that cooperative courts have no jurisdiction to cancel the sale-deed and such jurisdiction lies with the civil courts.
9) Perusal of order dated 19.11.2009 would show that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society has decided the dispute finally on merits and it is not a case where application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was re-considered by the authority. Deputy Registar recorded a finding to the effect that jurisdiction to set aside/ cancel the sale-deed vests with civil courts, therefore dispute raised by petitioner was not found maintainable and on this ground alone, dispute raised was dismissed, therefore contention made by Mr. Gupta to the effect that Deputy Registrar reviewed its earlier order appears to be misconceived.
10) In first appeal, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society maintained the order passed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society but the Registrar, Cooperative Society reversed those findings. Ultimately, State Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Co-Operative affirmed the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 7.12.2012.
11) Registrar, Cooperative Society in second appeal, set aside the orders passed by Deputy Registar and Joint Registar on the ground that principle of res judicata would apply but in my opinion, the findings recorded by the authority concerned are perverse. In the first round, Deputy Registrar decided the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC moved by respondent No. 5 and rejected it whereas vide order dated 19.11.2009, dispute was finally decided on merits.
12) Section 64 of The Act of 1960 reads as under :-
Disputes – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following :
(a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or a nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator of the society;
(b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of a society or of a society which is a member of the society;
(c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person;
(d) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society;
(e) any other society or the liquidator of such a society; and
(f) a creditor of a society.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a dispute shall include-
(i) a claim by a society for any debt or demand due to it from a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(ii) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(iii) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, any officer, past officer or deceased officer, any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or any servant, past servant or deceased servant, or its committee, past or present, whether such loss be admitted or not;
(iv) a question regarding rights, etc., including tenancy rights between a housing society and its tenants or members; and
(v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society :
Provided that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the results.
(3) If any question arising whether a dispute referred to the Registrar is a dispute, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.
Perusal of the aforementioned provision abundantly makes it clear that sale-deed cannot be canceled by cooperative courts while exercising the power under this Section.
13) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.