The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings before the Co-operative Act authorities were maintainable, and the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceedings under the Co-operative Act.

Navaniti Pd. Singh and j. JJ.

1. The present writ application relates to the dispute with regard to the property of Ugna Housing Co-operative Society Limited. The said society was registered in the year 1982 and operates in Ward no.11, Madhubani. It was registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and the rules framed thereunder being Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. It appears that the said Co-operative Society, for its members, who are large in number, had acquired , inter alia, about 10 kathas of lands out of which 7 kathas were distributed to some of the members. In 1986, two plots about 1 kathas each were allotted to two persons, namely, Smt. Shila Devi, who happens to be the wife of the Chairman and Mr. Basudeo Pathak, who was the then Secretary of the Co-operative. The private -respondents, who are members of the Co-operative and at whose instance the litigation started, dispute knowledge of the aforesaid transfer as effected in the year 1986. They support their submissions that, in fact, this 3 kathas contained a Pokhar ( a small domestic pond) and with reference to Resolution of the General Body of the Co-operative dated 17.8.1993, they submit that the decision of the Society was to maintain it as a pond for the members of the society having land adjacent to it and to construct a small Shiv Temple. It is submitted by the respondents in this regard that this would show that earlier allotment of the said plots of land in favour of Smt. Shila Devi and Mr. Basudeo Pathak were kept secret all along otherwise there was no necessity for such a deliberation. Be that as it may, in 1994, the petitioner, by registered sale deeds, purchased the aforesaid two plots of land. As per petitioners assertion, he had became a member of the Co-operative on 29.3.1993 and his name also appeared in the list of members ,as circulated by the Secretary of the Co-operative dated 23.9.1993. Thus the petitioner in 1994, purchased the entire three kathas of land ad measuring about 4720 square feet from the two persons aforesaid. Apparently when efforts were made to fill the pond by the petitioner , dispute arose. Apart from Sections 144 and 145 Cr. P. C. proceedings being initiated, some of the members, who are respondents herein filed an application before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Madhubani challenging the transfer of two plots to the petitioner primarily on two grounds. Firstly, a plot of land left by the society for common use of members could not be transferred to any person and secondly petitioner not being a member, could not be permitted to purchase the plots from the members of the co-operative. The Assistant Registrar by his order, as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, negatived both the contentions and dismissed the application holding that there appeared no pond on the disputed land and then he found that the petitioner had been allotted share as member of the co-operative. Respondents being aggrieved preferred an appeal to the Joint Registrar wherein petitioner also appeared. The matter was considered and the Joint Registrar reversed the order of Assistant Registrar holding that it was a land left for use as pond by several members of the co-operative and further he held that the transfer of land, as made by the Co-operative , in the year 1986 in favour of Smt. Shila Devi and Mr. Basudeo Pathak was wrong as also that the petitioner was wrongly shown as a member and as such he could not validly purchased the said plots.

2. Petitioner being aggrieved by this decision given by joint Registrar in appeal, field a revision before the Registrar, which was dismissed by order, as contained in Annexure 8 and being aggrieved there from the present writ application has been filed. On behalf of the petitioner, two contentions have been raised. Fristly, that the respondents could not have filed any application purporting to be an application in terms of Sec.48 of the Co-operative Societ