SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(AP) 321

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY
M. Venkataramana & Another
Versus
The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad & Others
W.P. No. 6212 of 2006 & 6375 of 2006
Decided on : 20-04-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Vedula Venkataramana, Advocate. For the Respondents:V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, G.P. for Cooperation, B. Narayana Reddy, K. Venkatesh Guptha, Advocates.

Headnote:A) A.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 7 of 1964, Sections 62 (l)(b), 61 and 121:- Competency of the Arbitrator to examine the validity or otherwise of the Sale deeds executed by the President of the Society in respect of land alleged to have been earmarked for parking area and also to cancellation of such sale deeds so executed – Findings of Arbtrator upholding his jurisdiction not correct – Upholding such a finding by the Co-operative Tribunal without examining independently, butt on the premises that a suit filed in civil court is dismissed on such finding is not proper.- Orders of Arbitrator and Tribunal set aside.

       B) A.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 7 of 1964, Sections 61 (1) and 121:- The bar of civil court’s jurisdiction under Section 121 is not attracted, unless it is shown that the action complained is one touching the business of the society or one which is covered by the Act or under the Rules. Thus where admittedly what is challenged is the alienations of lands purported to be parking area, it is not a business of the co-operative society and hence cannot be barred by adjudication in a civil court.

       C) A.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 7 of 1964, Section 61 (1):- The arbitrator had exceeded the authority by granting the relief of canceling sale deed executed by he co-operative society in respect of parking area which is admittedly beyond the scope of the objectives for which it is formed.

       D) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226:- The question whether the disputed site is a car parking are or earmarked for a common utility services is question can not be gone into in a writ proceeding since they are questions of fact which has to be proved by leading evidence.

       E) A.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 7 of 1964, Section 61:- Genuineness or otherwise of the sale deeds executed, nature of the land alienated and cancellation of such sale deeds can not be adjudicated upon under Section61 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :-

[Per GVS, J]

1. These two writ petitions arises out of the common judgment dated 27.02.2006 in CTA Nos.42, 52, 75 and 82 of 2004 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. W.P.No.6212 of 2006 is filed by the appellant in CTA No.42 of 2004 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.02.2006 of the first respondent-Tribunal and also the order dated 28.01.2004 of the 2nd respondent-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Kadapa in AR No.2/2002-2003 insofar as it relates to the petitioner concerning his premises No.7/544, admeasuring 3.2 cents situated in NGOs Colony, Jayanagar, Kadapa.

3. W.P.No.6375 of 2006 is filed by the appellant in CTA No.52 of 2004 seeking similar relief in respect of an extent of 0.03 cents in Sy.No.91/1 & 752/2, NGOs Colony, Jayanagar, Kadapa.

4. As two writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and arise out of the same impugned common order of the first respondent-Tribunal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

5. The petitioners in both Writ petitions filed CTA Nos.42 and 52 of 2004 assailing the award dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Kadapa in AR No.2/2002-2003. Two others also filed appeals, CTA Nos.75 and 82 of 2004, questioning the same award. All the four appeals were disposed of by the first respondent-Tribunal and impugned award passed by the Arbitrator was confirmed. Few facts, which are relevant, may be stated thus:

6. The President, Jayanagar Welfare Association and others filed arbitration petition before the District Cooperative Officer, Kadapa on 15.10.2002 alleging in brief as follows:

The Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.956, Revenue Department, assigned an extent of Ac.78.37 cents of land in Sy.Nos.91/1 and 75/2 of Chinnachowk village for a consideration of Rs.1,01,881/- in favour of Kadapa District NGOs Cooperative Building Society for allotting house sites to the members of the said society. The society got prepared a lay out plan marking the house sites for allocation for some specific public purpose i.e., parks, play ground, school, religious places, shopping, market and some vacant places adjacent to the above plots for roads, parking places for vehicles. The lay out plan was approved by Chinnachowk gram panchayat, and the Director, Town Planning, Hyderabad. Specific plots were allotted for small shops bearing Nos.S.27 to 36 and for big shops bearing Nos.B.30 to 40 and also for market and hotel in Section No.4. The small shops bearing Nos.S.27 to 36 are in one block with vacant site admeasuring 47.6” x 23.9” situated on the east and south of the shops to serve as parking places for the entire commercial complex. The said vacant site is facing Jayanagar colony main road on the eastern side and Link road on the southern side. The defendant society sold the said vacant site meant for parking to one M. Venkatramana (writ petitioner in WP No.6212 of 2006) through the registered sale deed bearing document No.1513 dated 07.04.2000 admeasuring 3.2 cents. The said action of the society was alleged to be illegal and contrary to the byelaws of the society and in violation of the approved lay out plan of the society. The defendant society also sold away rasta (road) to various persons under sale deeds for varying consideration. The defendant society also sold an extent of 3 cents to one R.C.S.Raju (writ petitioner in WP No.6375 of 2006), which was earmarked for community centre by registered sale deed dated 20.04.2000. One G.Gangulaiah, Vice President acting on behalf of the President, was not elected by general body of the society and he was illegally empowered to perform statutory functions of the President. Alleging that the acts committed by the said Gangualaiah without the approval of the general body or the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, are null and void, the President of the Jayanagar Colony Welfare Association and others, who are resp




















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top