Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Vs the Joint Registrar of

KANAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA NO.715/1, HARI COMPLEX 22ND CROSS ROAD, K R ROAD BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070 BY ITS SECRETARY NOW SHIFTED TO NO.39/2, 1^ST FLOOR, 'LAKSHMI NILAYA' K R ROAD, BSK II STAGE BENGALURU-560 070.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KANAKA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA NO.715/1, HARI COMPLEX, 22^ND CROSS ROAD, K R ROAD BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070 BY ITS PRESIDENT NOW SHIFTED TO NO.39/2, 1^ST FLOOR, LAKSHMI NILAYA K R ROAD, BSK II STAGE BENGALURU-560 070.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. A. MOHAMMED TAHIR.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION , NO.1, GMC BANK BUILDING ANNEXURE PAMPAMAHAKAVI RAOD, CHAMARAJPET

¶18

BENGALURU-560 018.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 3^RD DIVISION BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018.

¶20

SMT DEVAMMA

¶21

SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶22

3(a) M.K. RAMESH

¶23

S/O LATE KARIYAPPA

¶24

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.30, MUNISANJEEVAPPA LAYOUT, 1^ST CROSS, JARAGANAHALLI KANAKPURA MAIN ROAD J P NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 078.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

HC-KAR

3(b) MUTTHUSWAMY

S/O LATE KRIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3(c) K. JANARADHANA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶31

BOTH ARE R/AT MUTATTI BYADARAHALLI POST, HALAGURU HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 421.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.M. MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3(a to c)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI ORDER DATED 17/06/2017 IN DISPUTE NO.JRB/MD/40/2012-13 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-T AND ORDER DATED 23/08/2018 IN APPEAL NO.178/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-W.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.06.2017 in dispute No.JRB/MD/40/2012-13 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as the order passed by the Karnataka Appellant Tribunal, dated 23.08.2018 in Appeal No.178/2017.

¶41

The facts that can be summed up from the writ petition are that the deceased/respondent No.3 had filed prescribed application for enrolment as a member of the petitioner No.1. She had also sought for allotment of a site in III Stage Layout, Subramanyapura and paid part of the site value as demanded. The petitioner No.1 though admitted the respondent No.3 as one of its members, postponed the allotment of the site on the ground that there was some ongoing litigation between the petitioner No.1 and the Bangalore Development Authority. Later, petitioner No.1 had purportedly issued notices to respondent No.3 demanding payment of the balance sum

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

of Rs.88,000/-. Petitioner No.1 claims that the respondent No.3 did not comply the demand made under the notices and therefore lost her seniority in the list of applicants who had sought for allotment of sites. Thereafter, it appears that the Bangalore Development Authority approved the plan of the layout at III Stage Layout, Subramanyapura. The petitioners had allotted sites formed therein to various members excluding respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 on coming to know that she was overlooked and no site was allotted to her, raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and sought for a direction to the petitioner No.1 to allot a site measuring 30'X40' by receiving the balance sale consideration.

¶45

The said proceedings culminated in an order

¶46

whereby the petitioners were directed to allot a site after receiving the balance consideration. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the said order challenged it before the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Societies. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the

¶50

aforesaid orders are before this Court.

¶51

Sri. A. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the

¶52

petitioners contends that a notice calling for the balance sital value was issued to respondent No.3 through certificate of posting in the same manner as was issued to the other members. He contends that after the sites were allotted to other members, respondent No.3 belatedly approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies alleging that she did not receive any notices from the petitioners. He therefore contends that the petitioners cannot be held liable for not allotting the site to respondent No.3. He also contended that there are no sites available in the said layout and therefore it is now impossible for the petitioners to allot a site.

¶53

Sri. H.M Muralidhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(c) on the other hand contended that a site bearing No.157 is still available with the

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

petitioners and therefore petitioners may be directed to allot the said site to the respondent No.3. He contends that many members who were junior than the respondent No.3 were allotted sites and therefore the petitioners are liable to be hauled up and they are liable to be directed to allot site No.157.

¶57

When this petition was listed before this Court on

¶58

28.08.2025, the following order was passed:

¶59

''Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 (a) to (c) has filed a bunch of documents along with a memo, after serving a copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that site Nos. 182 and 157 are still with the society and are available for allotment.

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to secure instructions.

¶61

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, till the next date of hearing, the petitioners are directed not to allot site Nos. 182 and 157, if it is not already allotted to any person.''

¶62

If the respondent No.3 had deposited part of the

¶63

sital value, she obviously must have been included in the list of seniority of members who had sought for allotment

¶64

of a site.

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute

¶68

that many members junior than respondent No.3 were allotted sites in the layout formed at Subramanyapura. The reason cited for not allotting a site to respondent No.3 was that she did not pay the balance value of the site even though notices were issued to her. When this Court called upon the petitioner to furnish the details of the service of notice to respondent No.3, a ledger containing certificate of post sent to respondent No.3 is furnished. However there is no proof that the said notice was served on the respondent No.3. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was intimation to the respondent No.3 that she had to deposit the balance sital value. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies which was up held by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted.

¶69

When this Court proposed to the petitioners to allot Site No.157, learned counsel submitted that the present cost is a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- and respondent

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

No.3 should also bear the expenses of getting the site released from the Bangalore Development Authority.

¶74

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3(a) to (c) after securing instructions from respondent No.3(a) to 3(c) submitted that legal representatives of respondent No.3 would deposit a sum of Rs.3,60,000/and also pay the charges for getting the site released, provided the petitioners issue a notice intimating the amount to be paid for getting the site released.

¶75

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of on the following terms:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

(i) The impugned order dated 17.06.2017 in dispute No.JRB/MD/40/2012-13 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and confirmed by the Karnataka Appellant Tribunal vide order dated 23.08.2018 in Appeal No.178/2017 is upheld.

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:37888 WP No. 50090 of 2018

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

(ii) The petitioners shall execute and convey a deed of absolute sale in respect of Site No.157, formed in III Stage layout, Subramanyapura within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after getting the site released from the Bangalore Development Authority.

¶82

(iii) The legal representatives of the respondent No.3 shall pay the balance sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to the petitioners at the time of registration.

¶83

(iv) The petitioners shall raise and issue a demand notice to the legal representatives of respondent No.3 calling upon them to pay the charges for getting the site released from the Bangalore Development Authority and legal representatives of the respondent No.3 shall pay the same within a period of two weeks from the date of making such a demand.

¶84

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶85

RL

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara v. the Joint Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara v. the Joint Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraju a M Vs State of Karnataka

Davanagere Taluk Fish Sales Production and Processing Vs the State of Karnataka

Nataraj S L Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Lingaraju Basappa Banakar Vs the Union of India

The Chief Engineer Vs Assistant Commissioner and

Sumanth Kumar N R Vs State of Karnataka