SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36770

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J
Dr.TGK Mahadev – Appellant
Versus
Amitesh Jeet Sing – Respondent
C.C.C.A.No.23 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Kandharkar
For the Respondents: Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, K.R.Koteswera Rao

Disputes between members of a Cooperative Society regarding construction on allotted land must be referred to the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act; however, independent of such internal disputes, all constructions must comply with mandatory authorizations from statutory bodies like the Cantonment Board.

Headnote:(A) Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 61 and 126 - Dispute between members regarding construction on allotted land - Whether jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred - The court held that disputes touching the management or business of the society among members must be referred to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, thus excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (Paras 35, 36)

(B) Cantonment Act and Rules - Unauthorized construction - Requirement of sanction from competent authority - Even if a dispute is inter-se members of a society, no person is entitled to make construction without obtaining prior permission from the competent sanctioning authority (Cantonment Board). (Paras 37, 39)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, owner of a first-floor dwelling unit, sought a mandatory injunction against the first defendant (ground floor occupant) for illegal construction and encroachment on open space. The trial court dismissed the suit citing lack of jurisdiction due to the Cooperative Societies Act. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the matter involved broader violations of Cantonment rules.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the internal dispute regarding the land allotment and construction fell under the Cooperative Societies Act, requiring referral to the Registrar. However, it also determined that the construction was per se illegal as it lacked approval from the Cantonment Board.

Issues: Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the unauthorized construction warranted a mandatory injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputes regarding land/construction within a cooperative housing society are subject to the Registrar's jurisdiction under the Cooperative Societies Act, but statutory building regulations (Cantonment rules) independently mandate that no construction can proceed without municipal approval. Result : Appeal partly allowed; unauthorized construction ordered to be removed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff sought injunction against illegal construction in a cooperative housing society. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. trial court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds regarding society disputes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. appellate arguments centered on the maintainability of civil suits versus society arbitration. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. court affirmed the registrar's jurisdiction over internal society disputes. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. unauthorized construction requires intervention regardless of internal society disputes. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree, dated 28.12.2018 passed in OS No.170 of 2011 on the file of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The plaintiff/appellant herein, earlier filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction and claiming damages for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with future interest and costs against the defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff herein had earlier filed the suit, vide OS No.170 of 2011 against the defendant No.1 seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to remove the room in front of the dwelling unit which was encroached upon the open place and to remove the extension of roof on the sides of the dwelling unit on the ground floor, which was constructed in front of his house and further to direct the defendants more particularly defendant No.3 to remove the illegal construction in case the said illegal construction made by defendant No.1 failed to removed from the dwelling unit.

4. The plaintiff/appellant contended that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the dwelling unit bearing Flat No.184, First Floor, Type IV, Sector-A of survey No.157/1 of Thokatta Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and in Sy No.56/2 of Kakaguda Village, Secunderabad Cantonment. Originally the dwelling unit was constructed by Army welfare organization, New Delhi, which is the parent body of the Defendant No.2- Society (Army Welfare Cooperative Housing Society), for the welfare of the armed persons. The said unit was originally purchased by the Wing Commander T.S.Madhadev, who is the brother of the plaintiff under the housing scheme in the year 1996, thereafter, a regular Gift Settlement Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff, dated 05.05.2008.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the dwelling units were constructed over common walls and roof leaving behind open space for air, light and ventilation In the rules framed by the Defendant No.2- Society, no member shall make any alternation to the existing structure occupied over the ground floor without permission and issuance of NOC from the Defendant No.2- Society and the first floor occupants, if any new construction is carried out, the member has to obtain permission from the Defendant No.3- (Secunderabad Cantonment Board).

6. The plaintiff and his wife are doctors and working in U.K., presently plaintiff’s brother who is GPA holder is staying in the dwelling unit. The defendant No.1 taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff has encroached upon the open space in front of the dwelling unit and constructed a room and also extended the roof area of all the room all around Defendant No.1 dwelling unit. Further, when the plaintiff’s brother visited the dwelling unit in the May, 2011, he came to know about the changes made in the dwelling unit. On information given by the plaintiff brother, Defendant No.2- Society inspected the unauthorized construction and inquired about the same.

7. Due to the illegal construction made by defendant No.1, the plaintiff made a complaint to Defendant No.2- Society abou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top