The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the principles of natural justice in the context of a dispute regarding the purchase of land and transfer of property to a cooperative society.

Petitioner in this petition, questioning the legality and validity of the award passed in Miscellaneous Dispute No.4 of 1997-98 on the file of the second respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur, Mysore District and also the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 509 of 1998, dated 2nd September, 1998 and 16th May, 2002 respectively vide Annexures-A and C, as illegal and unsustainable, has presented the instant writ petition.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, he was the former Director and former Honorary Secretary of the first respondent-Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha (hereinafter called 'Sangha'). The first respondent-Sangha has passed the resolution dated 8th February, 2004 authorising the petitioner to purchase the land referred to in the original proceedings as the suit schedule land. Further, an agreement to purchase the said land has been executed by petitioner on 11th August, 1994 in favour of the President of the Sangha and the agreement was for getting the land in question converted into non-agricultural land and thereafter wards to transfer the same in the name of the Sangha. After the said land was converted into non-agricultural land, the petitioner purchased the said land in his own name and did not transfer the said property to the Sangha, first respondent. Therefore, the Sangha was constrained to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'Ace) and requested the Competent Authority to refer the matter for adjudication. The Competent Authority, in turn, has referred the matter to the Arbitrator, the second respondent herein and the said dispute has been numbered as Miscellaneous Dispute No.4 of 1997·98.

The second respondent, after careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, after affording an opportunity to both parties, has passed the award dated 2nd September, 1998 vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, petitioner herein has filed the appeal on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ("Tribunal" for brevity) in Appeal No. 509 of 1998. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed confirming the award passed by the Arbitrator. Assailing the correctness of the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 vide Annexures-A and C respectively, referred above, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

3. The principal submission canvassed by Sri Sridhar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the dispute entertained under Section 70 of the Act by second respondent is one without jurisdiction for the reason that, petitioner has purchased the land in question in his own name and not on behalf of the Sangha and that, the same is nothing but a 'benami' transaction, Further, he vehemently submitted that, the second respondent was in error in holding that, the land in question was purchased by the petitioner from out of the funds of the Sangha and the same is unsustainable for want of evidence in that regard. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Appellate Authority-Tribunal.

Further, he submitted that, both the authorities have committed gross error in not considering' the specific ground and contention taken by petitioner that, the claim of the land in question by the Sangha is plainly hit by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Further, he submitted that, the contention as regards the invasion of the principles of natural justice has also not been properly considered and appreciated by Tribunal and thereby the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the appeal without considering the matter on merits of the case and the case made out by petitioner. He further, submitted that, the Tribunal has failed to consider the Apex Court judgment relied upon by petitioner in