Authority under Section 70 enables the Additional Registrar to cancel improper allotments and registered sale deeds within cooperative societies, reinforcing adherence to bylaws and judicial oversight.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Judgment dated 09.07.2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No.253/2018 (Co-op) (Annexure-A) and declare it to be illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

ii. Pass any such other order(s), writ, directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Respondent No.2 - Society had formed a residential layout and allotted sites to its members. One of the sites being Site No.15, formed in Sy.No.22/4, 22/6, 22/7 (Renumbered Sy.Nos.45 and 46 and 48) situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West (60 + 62)/2 feet North to South (72 + 60)/2 feet, totally measuring 4026 sq.ft., was allotted in favour of Respondent No.5-B.M.Yogesh. A sale deed dated 19.1.2013 came to be executed, and Respondent No.5 was put in possession of the same. Respondent No.5 sold the said property on 11.03.2013 vide a registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner and Respondent No.6-S.Bhaskar. Respondent No.6 subsequently relinquished his 50% share in the said property under a registered release deed dated 9.10.2015, subsequent to which the Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession.

3. The Society had filed a dispute before the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Society (for short, ‘Addl.RCS’) seeking relief to direct Respondents No.3 and 4 to pay an amount of Rs.62,05,300/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and cancel the sale deed dated 19.1.2013.

4. In the said dispute, it was contended that the Board of the Society is the one that was competent to allot the sites. The Board had not allotted any site to Respondent No.5. Respondent No.4 had no power or Authority to execute a sale deed in respect of the scheduled property in favour of Respondent No.5. The sale deed which had been executed in favour of Respondent No.5 was so done, ignoring the seniority of other members.

5. The site, which had been allotted to Respondent No.5, had immediately been sold within two months to the Petitioner for a sum of Rs . 62,05,500/-, and as such, a huge loss had been incurred by the Society.

6. The Petitioner and Respondent No.6, on appearance, filed their objections, contending that the dispute is not maintainable against the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 since they are not members of the Society. The Respondent No.3, being the President of the Society, and the Respondent No.4, being the Executive Director of the Society, having executed a sale deed in favour of the Respondent No.5, is proper and correct. The Vice-President has also signed the sale deed as a witness, and for that reason, the Petitioner believed the sale deed to be proper and valid. As such, they contended that the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 were bona fide purchasers for value.

7. Respondents No.3 to 5 had also filed objections contending that Respondent No.5 was their member and the sale deed which had been executed in favour of Respondent No.5 was proper and valid. No sale deed could be cancelled by the Addl.RCS. Such power would vest only with the Civil Court. Section 70 does not provide any power for cancellation.

8. The dispute came to be dismissed on the ground that the allegation made by the Society was not true and that Respondent No.1 did not have the Authority to cancel the sale deed. It is claimed that post such dismissal, the Petitioner started constru