B 1

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.11 SECTION IVA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29325/2010

(From the judgement and order dated 15/02/2010 in WP No. 646/2009

of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT JABALPUR)

SATYA PAL ANAND Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report )

Date: 25/10/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Shri Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Advocate, who filed

vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, says that he

has been instructed by the petitioner not to appear in

the case because he would like to argue his own case.

The petitioner has not appeared to argue the

case. However, we do not consider it proper to adjourn

the matter.

The Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society

Ltd., Bhopal (respondent No.4) sold plot No. 7-B,

Punjabi Bagh, Bhopal to petitioner’s mother Smt.

Wirawali Anand vide sale deed dated 22.3.1962. Smt.

Wirawali Anand died on 12.6.1988. After 16 years,

2

respondent No.4 is said to have executed another sale

deed in respect of the same plot in favour of

respondent No.3. On coming to know of the transfer of

the land in favour of respondent No.3, the petitioner

initiated three proceedings. In the first instance, he

filed a petition under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh

Co-operative Societies Act, which proceeding is pending

before the Deputy Registrar Court, Co-operative

Societies, Bhopal. He filed F.I.R. dated 12.9.2008,

which is pending investigation. The petitioner also

demanded cancellation of the building permission

granted to respondent No.3 by Municipal Commissioner,

Bhopal, but the latter did not take any action. He

then filed writ petition for quashing the sale of plot

to respondent No.3.

By the impugned order, the High Court

disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the

concerned Deputy Registrar to finally dispose of the

dispute after giving opportunity of hearing to the

parties.

In our view, the impugned order does not

suffer from any legal infirmity. Rather, by directing

the Deputy Registrar to finally decide the matter, the

High Court has done substantial justice and we do not

find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned

order.

The special leave petition is accordingly

dismissed.

(A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora)

Court Master Court Master