Surcharge liability cannot be imposed on a Special Officer for selling unused, non-marketable society lands if the action was based on a General Body Resolution and the properties did not fall under the restrictive scope of specific administrative circulars for approved sites.

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.

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 1st 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 1st 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 1st respondent for a sum of Rs.15,00,013/-. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 the Society lands. Therefore, the well-considered order of the lower Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the properties in question had remained vacant and unused for several decades. The records further reveal that the decision to alienate the said properties was taken pursuant to the resolution passed in the General Body Meet