Petitioners not members or agents of the society; dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act not maintainable.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings pending before respondent No.1 in Dispute No.ANI(Va&E)/D-2/NMD/01/2020-21 produced as per Annexure-Z and to set aside the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by KAT in Appeal No.146 of 2022 by confirming the interim order passed by respondent No.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner No.1 is the developer and petitioner No.2 is the owner. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and respondent No.2 - Society entered into a MOU dated 18.09.2015 as per Annexure-G to develop the properties for residential purposes. In the meantime, petitioner No.2 had entered into an agreement of sale with one Chengappa in respect of Sy.No.67 measuring 4.19 acres and got the sale deed registered in his favour. During 2014 petitioner No.2 had acquired 1.31 acres of land in Sy.No.64/1C and permitted petitioner No.1 to develop the same as per the terms of MOU.

3. Now it is the contention of respondent No.2 that petitioner No.1 being the developer and petitioner No.2 being the owner have not complied with the terms of MOU dated 18.09.2015. Therefore, raised a dispute before the Registrar under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'KCS Act'). The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS) passed the interim order in favour of the Society. The same was challenged before the KAT. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Heard Sri. Uday Holla, learned senior advocate for Sri. Mahesh H, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K Pujar, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. S Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for caveator - respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

5. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners are not the members of the respondent - Society nor its employees, the dispute under Section 70 of KCS Act, is not maintainable. Therefore, the entire proceedings is to be quashed.

6. Learned Senior advocate drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-G - the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.09.2015 to contend that the terms of MOU makes it clear that the partnership firm and the partner who is none other than petitioner No.2 herein are referred to as first party and the Society is referred to as second party. The agreement between these two is to the effect that the first party who is engaged in business of real estate as developer possesses right on certain properties described in the schedule therein, seeking to collaborate and enter into an arrangement with the Society under the MOU. As per the terms of MOU, petitioner No.2 is the purchaser of Sy.No.64/1C under the registered sale deed, which was transferred to H.M. Chengappa, who was also the owner of Sy.No.67 measuring 4.19 acres. The MOU discloses that the schedule property belonged to one C.V. Chandrahasa and others who sold said schedule-A property in favour of H.M.Chengappa under the registered sale deed. Pursuant to the sale deed, the RTC stood in his name and the said H.M.Chengappa executed into a registered sale deed in favour of H.K.Ramesh - petitioner No.2 herein. Therefore, the MOU was entered between the parties, wherein, petitioner No.2 is the partner of first party, who has an exclusive and independent arrangement under the sale agreement with the owners of the schedule property, has undertaken to acquire the rights over the schedule property to facilitate the development and the sale of the same. Based on this contingent, first party entered into the MOU with second party - Society to convey the rights of the schedule property so a