Telangana High Court
Diddi Ananthaiah vs The State Of Telangana, And 2 Others on 19 April, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23927 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent - Joint Registrar / District Co-operative Officer against the 3rd respondent - A.P. Secretariat Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited for not following the bye-laws of the Society and the provisions of Telangana State Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), as illegal and contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of petitioner is that the Government of composite Andhra Pradesh allotted land measuring Acs.97.00 and Acs.67.00 in Survey No. 201 of Saheb Nagar (Vanasthalipuram) Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, through G.O.Ms. Nos. 616 & 617 dated 25.4.1979 in favour of Hyderabad City Employees Co-Operative House Building Society Limited and the A.P. Secretariat Employees Co-Operative House Building Society Limited. The responsibility for constructing buildings on this land was entrusted to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) which subsequently constructed houses.
It is stated that the 3rd respondent is a registered society under the Act for secretariat employees. Petitioner, being a member of the 3rd respondent Society, was allotted Plot No. 2 329 through proceedings No. U/2617/82 and HUDA constructed the house under the low-income group scheme on loan and handed it over in 1983 and since then, he has been residing with family. It is his case that Plot No. 328 allotted to Mr. RVS. Murthy, another member of the Society, was sold to third parties, contravening the bye laws and objectives of the society, particularly sub-clause (13) of Bye Law No 42 & 47, which reads under:
"No person to whom a plot has been allotted shall alienate the same, with or without construction thereon, to a member or any other person without the prior approval of the managing committee of the society"
Clause No.47 further clarified stating that No member shall alienate any house-site bought or house constructed with the help of a loan taken from the society except to a member of the society or is one whom the Managing Committee has admitted as a member. The approval of the Registrar shall be obtained before such alienation is permitted by the Managing Committee" Contrary to the above said two clauses in the bye laws of the society, Plot No.328 was sold out to a non member of the society.
In the affidavit, it is stated that the Society paid land cost to government at Rs. 2000/- per acre; HUDA approved the layout and divided the land into plots, duly providing marking amenities. During this process, some excess land was left in corner areas and members of adjacent plots were entitled to acquire this land upon payment of Rs. 50 per sq yard. It is the case of petitioner that they received 131 square yards of land under the low-income group scheme and occupied an 3 additional 153.60 square yards of excess land adjacent to their plot. Furthermore, it was mentioned that HUDA constructed a total (1655+870) houses, allotted to members of the 3rd respondent Society. After receiving the sale consideration, the Collector forwarded proposals on 25.8.2000 to CCLA for transfer of land in favour of the Society. Subsequently, CCLA recommended the same to the Government, which issued directions to the District Collector to execute conveyance deeds in favour of both Societies via Memo dated 19.04.2002. The Collector granted permission to the 3rd respondent to execute sale deeds in favour of its members who produced no dues certificates from HUDA. Although the Government did not impose time limit for registration, the Collector directed completion before 28.02.2003, which was later extended upon the request of the 3rd respondent.
It is further stated that during the land allocation process, members of the 3rd respondent Society occupying excess land received notices from HUDA for payment of Rs.1200/- per square yard for regularization, which stalled registrations. The 3rd respondent objected to this, asserting that they had paid the entire land cost to the government and thus owned the property, with HUDA having no right of ownership on the excess land except on common amenities. A meeting was convened on 28.6.2007, chaired by the CCLA, to address issues 4 of encroachment and third-party sales. Following discussions, it was decided not to allow third-party registrations to preserve the land's intended welfare purpose for employees. Any violation would face stringent action as it contradicted both society bye- laws and objectives. However, Plot No. 328 was sold to a non- member, breaching bye-laws and society objectives. This third party further encroached by illegally occupying excess land adjacent to petitioner's plot. Despite complaints to Respondents 2 and 3, no action was taken, allowing the third party to construct two rooms, disturbing petitioner's easement rights. Petitioner was therefore, forced to institute O.S.No. 732 of 2007 which was decreed in his favour on 10.01.2012, confirming encroachment and illegal construction, however, no effective resolution was achieved. The court-appointed Advocate- Commissioner confirmed the encroachment and construction of two rooms in their report on 07.04.2007.
It is stated that petitioner filed E.P.No. 42 of 2010, which led to demolition of illegal construction. Subsequent efforts, including approaching the Special Officer via Application (ARC No.9/2016), were hindered by confusion over boundaries. Despite this, the 3rd respondent confirmed the allotment in the petitioner's favour and acknowledged their entitlement to register excess land adjacent to their plot.
5
HUDA issued the demand notice on 05.02.2000 for regularization of 144 sq.mts, which was intended to be registered in favour of members occupying excess land adjacent to their houses on payment of Rs. 50 per sq. yard to the Society. However, registration was not done, allowing third-party purchasers to grab the land. Despite approaching various authorities, including revenue and HUDA, for justice through representations since 2006, no action was taken. The 3rd respondent executed sale deeds for Plot No. 329 on 28.04.2017 and Plot No. 328 on 15.12.2017, leaving the issue of excess land unresolved.
The grievance of petitioner is that he is a septuagenarian and has been running pillar-to-post with a hope to get excess land adjacent to their plot. He approached Respondents 2 and 3 with the representation dated 02.07.2019, but in vain. The 3rd party purchasers continuously attempting to encroach the land, posing challenges for petitioner to restrain them, especially considering their advanced age.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Society, it is stated that Writ Petition lacks merit both factually and legally and should be dismissed. It is stated that Acs. 70 of land in Survey No.201 of Sahebnagar, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District was indeed allotted to the Secretariat Employees Co-Operative House Building Society 6 Limited for construction of houses. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority undertook construction of 870 houses in three categories (MIG, LIG, EWS) in 1983 and allocated them to society members based on eligibility criteria.
The President of the 3rd respondent Society affirms that House No. 328 of LIG, with an area of 110 Sq. Mts., was allotted to Sri. R V. Satyanarayana Murthy, a member of the society, however, registration of houses allotted in 1983 was delayed until 2002 for various reasons. Finally, the Government instructed the Collector to execute Conveyance Deed in favour of the Society, accordingly, the Collector, R.R. District executed conveyance deed in favour of the society to facilitate registration of houses. At that time, the Collector noted that nearly 52 members of the Society have occupied excess land and stated that the issue of excess land shall be taken up after discussing the issue with officers concerned, hence, the Society has not registered these 52 houses and petitioner who is an allottee of LIG 329 is one such candidate having excess land of 144 square meters, hence, registration was also held up. During arbitration before the Deputy / Assistant Cooperative Officer, it is stated that nearly 52 members, including petitioner with House No. LIG 329, had excess land and directed the Society to register the houses in favour of such allottees limiting extent as per norms laid down by the Society. Accordingly, registration 7 was done limiting to the said extent in 2016-17. Petitioner got his house registered on 28.04.2017 and Sri RVS Murthy, allottee of Plot No. 328 got his house registered in his favour in 2017.
It is also stated, while allotting land to the Society in G.O.Ms.No. 617, dated 25.04.1979, the government stipulated a condition to the effect that allottee of plot shall not alienate, transfer or otherwise dispose of the same for a period of 15 years from the date of allotment. Though houses were allotted in 1983, registration could not be done till 2002, during the said period, some allottees have sold their houses by executing sale agreements without holding any title. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.Os.Ms.No. 8, dated 05.01.2004, fixed registration charges payable by the 3rd parties in respect of houses allotted to members of the 3rd respondent Society; accordingly, the 3rd party registrations have been taken up by the Society. It is stated that H.No. 328 was registered in favour of RVS Murthy only on 15.12.2017 based on the arbitration orders limiting the area to 110 square meters and thereafter, the Society has nothing to do with the sale of house No. 328 to the 3rd party. Regarding excess land, the Society will take action along with other allottees / 3rd parties, who are also having excess land.
8
It is stated that Society is working out modalities to solve the issue of excess land by consulting the authorities concerned; as, according to bye-law 47 of the Society, no member shall be allotted more than one plot. Petitioner was allotted a plot and he had occupied another 144 square meters and constructed pacca building of two floors and got the same regularised under Building Regularisation Scheme. It is stated that the Society is taking up the issue with the GHMC authorities.
According to this respondent, the contention that the 3rd party purchaser of Plot No. 328 is not entitled to extra land adjacent to the house, as he is not a member of the Society, is a broader issue affecting several members who have already sold their houses to third parties. The allotment of excess land adjacent to House No. 328 is a matter between the 3rd party purchaser and the Society, and petitioner's claim to the adjacent land is deemed unreasonable.
The Society asserts its ownership of the entire Acs.70 of land, having paid the cost to the Government. A meeting convened on 28.06.2007 addressed various issues, including excess land possession by some allottees, however, no official orders were issued based on the proceedings. As per the consensus reached at the meeting, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, R.R. District, conducted a detailed 9 survey and demarcated the land between the City Employees House Building Society and A.P. Secretariat Co-Operative House Building Society Limited. Proposals for alienation of specific portions of land to the respective societies have been pending with the Government since 2013.
Petitioner's claim of being made to run from pillar to post is disputed. It is stated that the present committee was elected and took charge on 22.07.2018, is examining to solve the issue of excess land. It is stated that there is no grievance to petitioner, who has occupied the excess land located adjacent to H.No. 329 and constructed pucca double-storied building and got orders of regularisation from GHMC for the house constructed on Society land without any title. It is a serious matter. Now petitioner is making his claim for excess land adjacent to H.No. 328. Petitioner pleads that allottee of H.No. 328 sold the house to a 3rd party, in this regard, it is stated that a stand has to be taken regarding excess land adjacent to the house of the 3rd parties / original allottees.
Heard Ms. D. Geetha, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri C.N. Moorthy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Society.
4. The prime case of petitioner is that the 3rd respondent executed sale deed in respect of Plot No. 329 leaving the issue of excess land on 28.04.2017, likewise in respect of 10 Plot No. 328 on 15.12.2017 favouring Sri RVS Murthy, but the same was sold on the same day in favour of third parties, hence either the original allottee or third party purchaser is not entitled for transfer of excess land abutting Plot No. 329. He is stated to have submitted representation dated 02.07.2019 requesting to register the excess land to Respondents 2 and 3, upon which, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to take necessary action on the representation as per the provisions of the Act and byelaws of the Society and report compliance.
5. The 3rd respondent, on the other hand, submits that petitioner occupied the excess land abutting Plot No. 329; constructed pacca double-storied building and got the same regularised without any title and now he is making claim for the excess land located adjacent to H.No. 328 on the ground that the 3rd party who purchased the house from Sri RVS Murthy, original allottee, is not entitled for extra land situated as he is not a member of the Society. In this regard, it is stated in the counter that Government through G.O.Ms.No. 617, dated 25.04.1979 put a condition that an allottee of a plot of land / tenement shall not alienate, transfer or otherwise dispose of the same for a period of 15 years from the date of allotment. In the case on hand, land was allotted to Sri RVS Murthy in 1983, though the same was not registered. When reckoned from 11 1983, the year of allotment, it is more than 15 years to the date of third party sale. Further, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 8, dated 05.01.2004, fixed the registration charges payable by the 3rd parties in respect of houses (only house extent of plinth area as per original plan of HUDA) allotted to the members of the A.P. Secretariat Employees House Building Society at Vanasthalipuram Phase III; accordingly the 3rd party registration has been taken up by the Society. This issue shall not be treated in isolation, for there are several members who sold their houses to the 3rd parties and having excess land. Once the house is sold, allotment of excess land is an issue between the 3rd party purchaser and the Society. In the counter- affidavit, it is categorically stated that regarding registration of excess land, the present Committee is examining and trying its best to solve the issue of excess land adjacent to the houses of the 3rd parties / original allottees.
6. In view of the specific averments made in the counter-affidavit, since the representation of petitioner was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent to take necessary action as per the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has not acted against the 3rd respondent. 12
7. In those circumstances, suffice to direct the 3rd respondent to take necessary action on the representation dated 02.07.2019 which was forwarded to him vide letter dated 08.07.2019 in conformity with the decision to be taken by the Committee, duly giving a reasonable opportunity to the affected / 3rd parties, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 19th April 2024 ksld