Compliance with statutory rules governing the sale of property, specifically Rule 38(2)(i) of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules, is mandatory and failure to comply results in loss of claims to the property and liability for loss occasioned by subsequent sale.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the confirmation of sale dtd. 30/5/2022 (Annexure-Y) issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.6 to the writ petition in respect of the suit schedule property.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of writ petition are that, the petitioner is a land developer and has developed layouts for Mysuru Urban Development Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 is a Co-operative Society registered under Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with an object of providing housing sites to its members. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No.4 Society, entered into Land Assembling-cum-Development followed by supplementary agreement to procure land at Banandur Village, Ramanagara Taluk. As per clause (2) of Part III of the agreement, the respondent-Society has agreed to make payments towards the development of proposed layout at various stages and respondent further agreed to pay Rs.749.00 per sq.ft. in terms of the payment details set out in principal agreement. In terms of the said agreement, six months period was fixed for assembling and conversion of the land and fifteen months period was stipulated for developing layout after obtaining approval from the competent authorities. In terms of the agreement referred to above, petitioner took up the work of assembling land and in the meanwhile, entered into an agreement with various land owners for securing necessary revenue records pertaining to the land in question. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner has spent huge amount towards the development of the project, however, in view of the dispute that arose between the petitioner and respondentSociety, the petitioner has lodged complaint with Sadashivanagar Police Station on 3/10/2016 and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Court as per endorsement dtd. 3/11/2016. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Society has filed dispute in No.356/2016-17 under Sec. - 70(2) of the Act and the said dispute was resisted by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is neither a member of respondent-society nor claiming any relief through the member/employee/office bearer of respondent-Society and accordingly, took up a plea with regard to jurisdictional aspect. The respondent-authorities having considered the averments made in the dispute and the objection raised by the petitioner herein, has passed an order dtd. 28/6/2017, (Annexure-A) to the writ petition and directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.17, 57, 87, 000.00 with accrued interest to the respondent-Society. Thereafter, the respondent-Society filed Execution Case No.ARB-2/45/CEP/6/17/18 before the respondent No.2, for recovery of the decreetal amount. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Writ Petitions No.26288-388 of 2017 before this Court challenging the order dtd. 17/12/2016 passed by the respondent No.1 therein and this Court, by order dtd. 28/8/2017 allowed Writ Petitions in part, by quashing the final order dtd. 28/4/2017, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2.00 crore before respondent-Society within two months from the date of order at Annexure-B to the writ petition. In the meanwhile, wife of the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.12294 of 2018, challenging the action taken by the respondent-Society against her property and this Court, by order dtd. 21/3/2018, granted an interim order staying Annexure-G1 and G2 therein, subject to certain conditions. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed, Application in IA.I of 2018 in Writ Petitions No.26288- 328 of 2017 disposed of on 28/8/2017, challenging the action taken by the respondent-authorities, and this court, by order dtd. 13/11/2018 (Annexure-D), appointed an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Pursuant to same, learned Arbitrator conducted the proceedings and by