The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the authority to direct the return of property based on historical ownership agreements and factual findings, reaffirming that judicial review should ensure no arbitrariness or illegality in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANU, J.

Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Reference to the parties in this judgment is as per the cause title in W.P.(C)No.14360/2011.

2. First petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of 31.12 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.306/9, 306/22, 307/3 and 307/4 in Kanjiramkulam Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk. Second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. She claims to be the absolute owner of the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.307/15 having an extent of 4.25 Ares in the same Village. The said properties were originally owned by one Nadesan Nadar, Syamalakumari and one Antony. They executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners on an understanding that their liabilities arising out of a loan transaction with the 7^th respondent Co-operative Bank will be cleared by the petitioners. They had availed a loan of Rs.2,000/- on 26.6.1968 from the Bank. Properties were transferred to the petitioners on 1972.

3. The dues arising from the loan transaction were not repaid. The Bank proceeded against the property and in the public auction it was bid in the name of the Bank. However, mutation was not effected and physical possession was not taken. The first petitioner approached the 7^th respondent to set aside the sale and to convey the property to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they were instructed by the 7^th respondent, on the basis of a decision taken on the request of the petitioners, to remit an amount of Rs.30,000/- for settlement of the loan account and return of the property by executing appropriate deeds. They claim that as evident from Ext.P4 receipt dated 19.9.1996 an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid which was kept in a suspense account. However, the property was not conveyed to the petitioners. Later, they came to know that the 7^th respondent was attempting to get the property mutated in its favour.

4. Petitioners approached the 2^nd respondent and requested to intervene in the matter by directing the 7^th respondent to annul the sale and to register the property in the name of the petitioners. They also sought a direction to refund excess amounts after calculating the interest for the loan amount. The 2^nd respondent, after considering the issue comprehensively, issued Ext.P6 directing the 7^th respondent to appropriate double the loan amount with interest from the amount kept in the suspense account and to return the balance to the petitioners. The bank was also directed to register the property in favour of the petitioners. The bank approached the Government against Ext.P6 issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. Government rejected the appeal of the bank by order dated 27.5.2013. In W.P.(C)No.14360/2011 petitioners are seeking implementation of Ext.P6. In W.P. (C)No.15724/2013 the bank is challenging the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the order passed by the Government upholding the same.

5. Heard Sri.Siddharth.R., learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14360/2011 and Sri.G.S.Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.15724/2013. Sri.Tony Augustine, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and its officers also addressed the court.

6. Sri.Siddharth submitted that the properties were purchased by the petitioners in 1972. Petitioners are still in possession and enjoyment of the properties. He relied on the report dated 11.1.2023 of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in this regard. He submitted that the report clearly shows that the property is in possession of the petitioners and the same is essential for access to their residence. He also sub