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) 63315

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 relating to the business or management of a cooperative society fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964; however, unauthorized constructions that violate local municipal or cantonment laws remains subject to statutory regulatory action by the competent authority.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 61 and 62 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Unauthorized construction and encroachment by a member of a Cooperative Housing Society - Whether a civil court has jurisdiction - When the dispute concerns the business and management of a cooperative society, the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted in favor of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 61 of the Act. (Paras 23, 25, 35, 36)

(B) Cantonment Act and Rules - Unauthorized construction - Requirement of sanction from the competent authority - Any construction or alteration to a dwelling unit requires prior approval from the local Cantonment Board, regardless of internal society disputes, failing which the board is mandated to initiate action. (Paras 37, 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, an owner of a dwelling unit, brought a suit against a downstairs neighbor (defendant No.1) for mandatory injunction to remove unauthorized construction and encroachment on open space, which allegedly obstructed light, air, and privacy. The trial court dismissed the suit citing lack of jurisdiction under the Cooperative Societies Act, leading the appellant/plaintiff to file the present appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the interaction between members regarding the specific encroachment and land rights falls under the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the act of constructing without valid sanction from the local Cantonment Board remains a violation of statutory law. The court affirmed that the Cantonment Board has an independent duty to regulate unauthorized structures.

Issues: Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between members of a cooperative society and whether the court can grant relief for unauthorized construction in the absence of valid statutory permissions.

Ratio Decidendi: If a dispute touches upon the affairs or business of a cooperative society, Section 61 of the Cooperative Societies Act mandates referral to the Registrar; however, this does not absolve the duty to adhere to construction norms mandated by the Cantonment Board, and the court can exercise appellate power to ensure mandatory compliance with safety and building regulations.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; defendant directed to remove illegal construction within one month, and plaintiff permitted to approach the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for inter se disputes.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading to the suit and subsequent appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. arguments concerning court jurisdiction under the cooperative societies act. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. defining the scope of the registrar's jurisdiction in society member disputes. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. requirement of statutory sanction for construction and enforcement orders. (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 about the violation of the rights of the plaintiff, such as, right to privacy, air, light and ventilation and also there is every thread of security, sinc

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