1. The College Ward Co-operative Housing Society – respondent No.1 herein, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act of 1960'), allotted plot No.608, area 2400 sq.ft., to respondent Smt. Shashi Upadhyay and executed a registered sale deed in her favour on 21-10-1986. She could not commence and complete the construction, as required in the bye-laws of the society, within the stipulated time leading to raising of co-operative dispute under Section 64(2)(v) of the Act of 1960 by respondent No.2, as on account of non-construction within the stipulated time, her allotment was cancelled by respondent No.1 Society and it was reallotted to one Narayan Das Rathi on 22-10-1991, but later-on he surrendered the said allotment and accordingly, it was again allotted to petitioner No.1 herein and the respondent No.1 Society by registered sale deed dated 16-10-1998 executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 herein.

2. In the pending dispute filed by respondent No.2 Shashi Upadhyay, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by its order dated 31- 3-2004 held that the cancellation of allotment made in favour of respondent No.2 Shashi Upadhyay is in accordance with law and she is only entitled for refund of sale consideration feeling aggrieved against which she preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by its order dated 20-9-2004 allowed the appeal and held that respondent No.2 Shashi Upadhyay has right over the disputed subject land plot No.608 and the present petitioner No.1 Neha Chawda is entitled for entire amount along with interest.

3. Questioning legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, this writ petition has been preferred in which the respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit opposing the same.

4. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the order of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, declaring that respondent No.2 is the title holder of the subject land, is without jurisdiction and beyond the authority of the co-operative court, right to make a declaration of title is the exclusive province of the civil court and that runs contrary to the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Special Relief Act, 1963. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Marine Times Publications Pvt. Ltd. v. Shriram Transport & Finance Co. Ltd. and another, (1991) 1 SCC 469 and Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 10 SCC 767

5. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, has erred in setting aside the well reasoned and speaking order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as such, the order of the Joint Registrar deserves to be set aside.

6. Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for appearing for respondent No.2, would submit that the order passed by the Joint Registrar is strictly in accordance with law, as the relief claimed in the application under Section 64(2)(v) of the Act of 1960, is within the province of the co-operative court and the dispute has rightly been raised and allowed by the impugned order. He would further submit that the sale deed made in favour of respondent No.2 Shashi Upadhyay was never cancelled and that can be cancelled only by the jurisdictional civil court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as held in the matter of Kusum S. Verma and another v. Pritam Singh Gulati and another, 1998 (1) MPLJ 578.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and given thoughtful consideration and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to c