( 1 ) MR. RAVINDRA R. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that petitioner No. 5 has expired on 28-12-2001 and his legal heirs are not desirous of persuing the matter and, therefore, he submits that the matter may be treated as for petitioners No. 1 to 4 only. Mr. Shah further states that the rule is served by direct service and some of the respondents have refused and the affidavit of service of rule including for refusal is filed and taken on record.

( 2 ) SINCE in all these petitions common facts and common questions are involved, they are being dealt with together.

( 3 ) THE contention raised by the petitioners is that the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2 Society, Mathuriyanagar Cooperative Housing Society (referred hereinafter as "the Society") has entered into the settlement contrary to and dehors the resolution passed by the General Body of the society.

( 4 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the members of the society and Lavad Suits No. 95/1996, 96/1996, 97/1996 and 98/1996 were filed by the Society for the removal of the enchroachment over the land belong to the society. In all the aforesaid lavad suits, a settlement purshis was submitted on 26-2-1997, whereby it was declared that if the amount is not deposited by the concerned member as per the resolution dated 25-2-1997, the society shall be at liberty to remove the construction. The learned Nominee recorded the same and passed the consent award on the same day in terms of the purshis given by the society and the concerned member (s ).

( 5 ) THE petitioenr herein and one Ratilal Shanabhai Shah, who was initially petitioner No. 5 and who has expired on 28-12-2001, preferred an appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal against the consent award dated 26-2-1997 passed by the learned Nominee in the aforesaid suits, claiming that they are aggrieved by the order. However, since they were not party to the lavad suits, the application for leave to prefer appeal were submitted being Misc. Applications No. 2/1997 to 5/1997. The contention of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal (who were applicants before the Tribunal) was that the resolution on the basis of which the settlement has taken place is contrary to the resolution of the General Body dated 25-12-1996, whereby it was resolved that no lavad suit proceedings should be withdrawn without prior approval of the General Body and it was the case of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal that though the General Bodys resolution dated 25-12-1996 was already on record in the proceedings of the suits, the learned Nominee has allowed the suits to be compromised and in any case the society should not have compromised the suits on the basis of the resolution dated 25-12-1996 of the managing committee, which is contrary to the resolution of the General Body. The learned Tribunal, as per the order dated 31-3-2000, held that the oder of settlement is not effecting the rights of the petitioners herein and, therefore, they cannot said to be aggrieved parties and, therefore, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed. The petitioners herein also preferred review applications being No. 12/2000 and 15/2000 before the Tribunal. However, ultimately the said review applications also came to be dismissed as per the order dated 27-8-2001. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions. Since there were four lavad suits, four appeals with the applications for leave to prefer appeal and four review applications, therefore, four seperate petitions are preferred.

( 6 ) WHEN the matter is taken up for final hearing, on behalf of the Society Mr. K. M. Patel, learned Counsel has submitted that, as a matter of fact, the resolution dated 25-2-1997 on the basis of which settlement has taken place is not at all there in the original record of the lavad suits. That apart, even if such resolution exists in the record of the lav