Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) The members of the 5th respondent Society wanted to have one plot retained for the common utility and facilitation for the Syndicate Bank Colony. Therefore, the General Body of the 5th respondent Society passed a resolution on 26.01.1974, to retain Plot No.890 which was supposed to be an inauspicious plot and for which there was no takers, for the purpose of common utility.

(iii) The impugned order dated 14.08.2012, has been passed without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner and also the 5th respondent Society, hence it is illegal.

(iv) The layout was not sponsored by the 5th respondent but by the 4th respondent Housing Board, which alone had to follow the Rules of Reservation.

(v) When the General Body of the 5th respondent passed resolution to retain Plot No.890 for common purpose, the 7th respondent attended the meeting but he did not make any objection to it nor demanded the plot for him. The 7th respondent did not remit any amount and book the plot for him nor did he make even a request for it.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that originally 89 plots were allotted by the 4th respondent Housing Board to the 5th respondent House Building Society. As there were no takers, 39 plots were surrendered to the 4th respondent. Out of 50 plots, the 4th respondent allotted directly three plots to the employees of the Syndicate Bank. For the remaining 47 plots, the Cooperative Building Society furnished the names of employees of the Syndicate Bank for allotment of plots by the Housing Board. Now the petitioner Association has been formed for the benefit of their members and the General Body of the 5th respondent Society passed a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis resolution on 26.01.1974 to retain Plot No.890 for the purpose of common utility. Thereafter the General Body of the 5th respondent Society in its meeting held on 25.01.2001, requested the 4th respondent to allot Plot No.890 to the Petitioner Welfare Society.

12. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would submit that the resolution has been passed in the year 1974 allotting Plot No.890 for common purpose. Thereafter the Housing Board alloted the plot to the petitioner and a sale deed has also been executed. Now, the first respondent cannot set aside the same.

13. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Housing Board would submit that originally 89 plots were allotted to the 5th respondent and 39 were surrendered and out of the remaining 50, three plots were sold directly by the 4th respondent and 47 plots were allotted by the 4th respondent to the employees of the 5th respondent Society. 7th respondent has never made any application for allotment at the relevant point of time. Now on the basis of the resolution passed in the year 1974 the property has been retained for common purposes by the Society, which has been sold to the petitioner welfare society in the year 2004. Suit has been filed in this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis regard, which was rejected. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is his contention that there was no investigation done to find out if any rights of the 7th respondent has been deprived. Therefore, mechanically an order has been passed which led to the filing of the arbitration proceedings by the authorities since they have been forced to take such step otherwise they will have to face criminal prosecution under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.