Karnataka High Court
The Coffee Board Employees vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 19 January, 2021
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.28421 OF 2015 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN
The Coffee Board Employees
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd,
No.1, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedi
Bangalore-560001.
By its Secretary
...Petitioner
(By Sri .D.K.Sriramappa, Advocate)
AND
1. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies
In Karnataka, No.52, Ali Asker Road,
Bangalore-01
2. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Bangalore Region, Pampa Mahakavi Road
Chamarajpete
Bangalore-560018.
3. R. Sathyanarayana
Aged about 60 years
S/o Ramareddy
No.176/29
Kadirenahalli Park
Ring Road 100 ft Road
2
BSK 2nd Stage
Bangalore-560070. ....Respondents
(By Miss.Swetha G.Deshpande, Advocate for
Sri .G.Papi Reddy, Advocate for R3,
Sri.Shridar N. Hegde, HCGP for R1 to R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 01.10.2014
passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Bearing
No.105/2009 (CS) vide Annex-G and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for 'preliminary hearing in B
group' this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The Petitioner- Coffee Board Employees Co-operative Housing Society is before this court seeking to assail the order dated 01.10.2014, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal bearing No.105/2009 at Annexure-G.
2. Respondent No.3 who is the member of the petitioner-Society was allotted a site bearing No.684/A situated in the Layout at Hebbal - Kempapura, Bangalore which was formed by the petitioner-Society. It is also admitted fact that for the first time the petitioner sought for allotment during the year 1995 and the same has been recorded in the General Body Meeting. However, by 3 the time, respondent No.3 sought for allotment of site, almost all the sites were allotted in favour of the members and therefore, the Board passed a resolution during the year 1996 that if any sites are available, on humanitarian consideration, a site may be allotted to respondent No.3. At the time of allotment, the cost of the site was fixed at Rs.22,000/-. The petitioner was issued a provisional letter of allotment and the provisional cost of the site excluding development charges was fixed at Rs.22,000/-.
3. Nevertheless, in the General Body Meeting that was held on 29.09.2001, it was decided that the site allotted in favour of respondent No.3 shall be at the prevailing rate at which the Bangalore Development Authority was allotting sites in accordance with its Rules. Respondent No.3 is said to have agreed of the said decision.
4. Nevertheless, Respondent No.3 raised a dispute before respondent No.2 Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in dispute bearing No.JRB/MD/52/2004-05, under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Considering the case of respondent No.3 and the petitioner herein, the petition of respondent No.3 was 4 allowed partly. It was ordered that the amount already deposited by respondent No.3 shall be taken into consideration and the site shall be registered in the name of respondent No.3 as per the prevailing BDA guidelines. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Register of Co-operative Societies, respondent No.3 approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 01.10.2014, in Appeal No.105/2009, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and directed the petitioner-Society to register the site in favour of respondent No.3 by collecting developmental charges amounting to Rs.17,415/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from 24.09.1999 till the date of actual payment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Society has furnished the original resolution Book containing the resolution passed by the General Body of the Society on 29.09.2001. On going through the original Register, this court finds that respondent No.3 is a party to the said resolution having participated in the General Body Meeting.
The signature of respondent No.3 is found in the Attendance Register which is also part of the resolution book. It shows that 5 respondent No.3 has participated in the proceeding which was held on 29.09.2001.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Society has taken this court through the resolutions passed by the General Body of the petitioner-Society. It clearly shows that a conscious decision was taken by the General Body noticing the fact that by the time, respondent No.3 sought for allotment of site, almost all the sites were allotted to its members. Though the respondent No.3 became a member of the Society during the year 1982 and the layout was formed during the year 1984-1985 and allotment was made in favour of the members. Respondent No.3 did not seek allotment of the site. It is also found in the discussion of the General Body that due to some disputes, few sites may be available for allotment, but having regard to the expenses incurred by the petitioner-Society in forming the layout and taking care of the disputes that were raised consequent to allotment of sites, the Board of General Body felt it appropriate to allot the sites in favour of respondent No.3 at prevailing rate at which Bangalore Development Authority was allotting sites in terms of the Rules. Another important aspect to be 6 noticed is that Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, while passing the order dated 29.12.2008 has noticed that during the relevant point of time, another site was allotted in favour of another member by the name of Sri. T.K.Mahadevappa with respect to site No.655. It was noticed that the said member has paid a sum of Rs.2.40 lakhs for a 30x40 feet site and having regard to those aspects, the Joint Registrar had directed the petitioner to pay similar amount as the sale consideration.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that when a decision was taken by the petitioner-Society to allot the site in question for a sum of Rs.22,000/-, respondent No.3 paid the said amount in two installments on 26.12.1996 and 16.01.1997. The provisional allotment was made in favour on 24.09.1999. It is therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that since the two installments were paid in year of 1996-1997 and the resolution was passed on 29.09.2001, the decision of the General Body should not be made applicable to respondent No.3, since the allotment was made which earlier in the case of respondent No.3.
7
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides and on perusing the petition papers and the original resolution book of the petitioner-Society, this court finds that the claim made by respondent No.3 is unreasonable.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has gone to the extent of denying the signature of respondent no.3 in the resolution book. This court finds that such submission would not better the case of respondent No.3. What is required to be noticed is that in the General Body Meeting held on 29.09.2001, an elaborate discussion has been held in the Meeting. The tentative price of Rs.22,000/- which was fixed in the case of respondent No.3 is the very same price at which the allotment were made to the members of the society during the year 1984-1985. Obviously, the said amount is required to be treated as tentative price. Respondent No.3, being a member of the society from the year 1982 did not seek any allotment of a site like other members as soon as the layout was found during the year of 1984-1985. If respondent No.3 had sought for an allotment initially, he would have the same benefit as of other members. What is to be noticed is that for the 8 first time, respondent No.3 sought for an allotment during the year 1995. It is also noticeable from the discussion of the General Body Meeting that there were no sites available at the relevant point of time. It is noticeable that there were some disputes raised with respect to formation of layout and the allotment of sites. Therefore, the General Body decided on humanitarian grounds that one site which may be available on account of cancellation of the allotment made in favour of any other member or because of some dispute, it would be allotted in favour of respondent No.3. At the relevant point of time only a tentative rate was fixed. Thereafter, on 29.09.2001 when the General Body Meeting was conducted and the subject of allotment of site in favour of respondent No.3 was discussed, the General Body has taken into consideration the attending factors and thereafter, took a conscious decision to allot a site in favour of respondent No.3 at the rate at which Bangalore Development Authority was allotting site under its Rules. Therefore, the action on the part of the petitioner-Society cannot be treated as arbitrary.
9
10. Respondent No.2-the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has taken all these aspects into consideration. On the other hand, the Tribunal has not taken these aspects into consideration. The decision of the Tribunal is based on the provisional allotment letter dated 24.09.1999.
11. On a comprehensive reading of the orders passed by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and the Tribunal and the discussions made above, this court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the Tribunal is required to be set aside as it cannot be sustained.
12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
13. The order dated 01.10.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal bearing No. 105/2009 at Annexure-G is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The order dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Joint Registrar /Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is upheld. 10
15. Respondent No.3 shall pay the balance of sale consideration in terms of the direction given by the Joint Registrar /Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies.
It is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE rv