Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she was the original defendant no. 2 in Lavad Case No. 290 of 2005 filed by the respondent no. 1 herein. Respondent no. 2 who is now being represented through the heirs filed the suit being Lavad Case No. 290 of 2005 before the Court of Board of Nominees, Surat contending that construction carried by the petitioner was in the open plot whereas the plaintiff's case was that the construction was in the common plot of the society. Before the Board of Nominees, the petitioner had specifically raised all contentions that the suit filed by respondent no. 1 was expressly time-barred and belated in view of the fact that the resolution allotting the open plot to the petitioner was dated 12.06.1983 which was never challenged by the original plaintiff - respondent no. 1 herein. Considering the issues at hand, the Board of Nominees allowed the suit of respondent no. 1 on the ground that the construction carried out by the petitioner was illegal since it was carried out in the common plot. The question of respondent no. 1's locus standi was also a subject matter of challenge by the petitioner. Petitioner went in appeal before the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 198 of 2011 whereby the order impugned was passed.

5. Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order of the Tribunal and submitted that though detailed written submissions were filed at Ex. 24 by the petitioner - respondent no. 1 in the suit, challenging the locus standi of respondent no. 1 herein inasmuch as the suit was grossly time-barred in view of the challenge to the 1983 resolution; that in fact the construction was not carried out in the common plot but it was an open plot allotted to the petitioner. However, without taking these considerations into account, the Appellate Court solely dismissed the appeal by placing reliance on two decisions of this Court in the cases reported in 1997(2) GLR 1756 and 2010(2) GLR 1820 by which this Court has held that a society cannot sell away the common plot even if there is a resolution passed by majority of its members.

6. Mr. Kamlesh Patel, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1 would support the decision of the Tribunal and contend that admittedly the construction was on the common plot and the Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the appeal.

7. Perusal of the order under challenge in the appeal would indicate, when perused in the context of the written submissions filed by the petitioner at Ex. 24 before the Tribunal, that it was the specific case of the petitioner that there was no question of the society having sold the common plot and that the actual plot on which the subject matter of construction was made was allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1983 and several detailed contentions were raised in the written submissions. Without adverting to the arguments made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner solely by relying on the two decisions cited in the body of the order. No discussion was made on the merits of the matter.