IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI The President, K. 1655, Udumalpet Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd., Palani Road, Gandhi Nagar, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District - 642 154.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.V. Elangovan

2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), Chinthamani Complex, North Coimbatore, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 19.07.2021 passed in Co-op.

CMA.No. 21 of 2017 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, AGP For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Sudhan, for R1 Mr.A.Anand, for R2

ORDER

Seeking to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 19.07.2021 passed in Co-op. CMA.No. 21 of 2017 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. It is stated that the petitioner Society is a Housing Society situated at Gandhi Nagar, Udumalpet, which had formed Gandhi Nagar Phase I to III layouts after obtaining approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning. The 1^st respondent served as Special Officer of the petitioner Society from 16.11.2007 to 06.07.2010. During his tenure, the properties earmarked for open space, long triangle site, water tank, well and library were sold pursuant to the General Body Resolution dated 15.09.2009 without obtaining revised D.T.P. approval and for a meagre consideration, thereby causing loss to the Society and the Government to the tune of Rs.15,00,013/-. Hence, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the 1^st respondent and, after conducting enquiry, a surcharge order dated 05.11.2012 came to be passed in S.C. No.1 of 2012 fixing liability on the 1^st respondent for a sum of Rs.15,00,013/-. Aggrieved by the same, the 1^st respondent preferred C.M.A. No.21 of 2017 before the Co- operative Tribunal-cum-Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, and the same was allowed by judgment dated 19.07.2021. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present revision petition lies within a narrow compass. According to the learned counsel, while functioning as Special Officer, the 1^st respondent alienated the properties earmarked for public purposes for a meagre consideration and such alienation is wholly unsustainable in law. He further argued that the 1^st respondent without following the statutory rules provided as well as Government Orders and Circular issued by the Registrar had sold the property of the Society and thereby the reasons stated by the 1^st respondent are not acceptable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the lower Court / Tribunal erred in setting aside the surcharge order and interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that admittedly the properties in question, namely the open space, long triangle site, water tank, well and library sites, had remained vacant and unused for more than 45 years. He further submitted that in the General Body Meeting held on 15.09.2009, a conscious decision was taken to sell the unused portions to the members of the Society taking note of the physical condition and nature of the properties. He argued further that the properties were not marketable since high tension electricity lines were passing over the sites and, being corner and unusable portions, no prospective purchasers were willing to purchase the same. He contended that the surcharge proceedings were initiated solely against the 1^st respondent despite the sale having been effected pursuant to the General Body Resolution. The Co-operative Tribunal had elaborately considered the entire issue, including the Circular dated 09.02.2010, and rightly held that the said circular would apply only to approved sites and not to unused portions of