JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 13-11-2000, passed by the revisional authority, namely the Secretary (Co-operation) as well as the judgment and order dated 2-5-1997 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in Revision Application No. 217 of 1996. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the order dated 10-10-2000 in Writ Petition No. 4 of 2000, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the revisional authority, namely the Secretary (Co-operation) was entitled to entertain the revision application at the instance of the petitioners and having not done so, has illegally refused to exercise his jurisdiction. On merits, it is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the fact that the respondent-society had not followed the prescribed procedure to terminate the rights of the heirs or the legal representatives of the original member, namely, late B.N. Rathod, and the only objection which was raised against the application filed by the petitioners was non-availability of the plot, there was no justification for the revisional authority to interfere in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 11-4-1996.

3. On the other hand, the impugned orders are sought to be justified by placing reliance upon the decisions in the matters of (Shri Ramesh T. Gopalani v. The Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. another)1, reported in 2000(3) Bom.C.R. 474 and (Madhukar Baburao Deshmukh v. Jalgaon Jillha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Co-op. Samaj Ltd. others)2, reported in 2002(Suppl.) Bom.C.R. 847 while contending that the revisional jurisdiction having been once exercised by one authority under the section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called as "the said Act" cannot be exercised again by any authority under the section 154 of the said Act. Further it is sought to be contended that the allotment of the plot in favour of the late B.N. Rathod was already cancelled on account of non-payment of the consideration for the plot and further the application by the mother of the petitioners was also rejected in 1980 for want of availability of the plot and the situation has not changed since then and in the absence of any availability of the plot, there is no question of allowing any of the petitioners to be enrolled as member of the respondent-society and in that regard reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in (The Atomica Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Shri B.R. Ballal and others)3, reported in 1988(2) Bom.C.R. 104. Besides, it is sought to be contended that considering the provision of the Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the petitioners having not filed the application within three years from the date of rejection of the application of the mother of the petitioners, the claim is barred by the law of limitation and in that regard attention is drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (State of Punjab others v. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar)4, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 111.

4. Few facts relevant for the decision are that, in 1954 the predecessor of the petitioners, namely B.N. Rathod was enrolled as the member of the respondent No. 1 society and was allotted with ten shares for the consideration paid by him. The society was essentially formed for the purpose of construction of premises for its members and initially plot bearing No. 29/B was allotted to the said B.N. Rathod. Subsequently, under the resolution dated 7-12-1969 the plot of the society was sought to be divided whereunder the plot No. 20/B came to be earmarked for the said B.N. Rathod. The said B.N. Rathod expired on 26-7-1966. By the letters dated 1-11-1978 and 8-11-1979 the widow of B.N. Rathod approached the respondent-society, claiming right of heirship in relation to the shares of B.N. Rathod to which it was informed to her under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document