Dismissed

K. Sridevi v. The Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Telangana HC24 Mar 2011WP/18658/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the initiation of arbitration proceedings by a co-operative society member. The Court held that the petitioner had previously obtained liberty to approach the arbitrator or raise a dispute under Section 61 of the Act, and thus could not now challenge the exercise of such statutory right.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; WPMP Nos. 23951/2007 and 27712/2008 are disposed of as infructuous.

K. Sridevi Vs The Commissioner and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.18658 of 2007

¶2

Date : 24-3-2011

¶3

Between : K.Sridevi w/o.K.Kondal Rao .. Petitioner And The Commissioner & Registrar of Co-operative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶4

Counsel for petitioner : Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : G.P. for Co-operation Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondent No.4 : None appeared

¶5

The Court made the following :

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

The case involves a long history. For disposal of this Writ Petition, it will suffice to note that there is a dispute relating to the measurements pertaining to Plot No.389 allotted by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner. With reference to the said dispute, the petitioner invoked the provisions of arbitration under Sections 61 and 62 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, "the Act"). The said proceedings were initiated by the arbitrator on 24-121990. When the said proceedings were pending, respondent No.3 sold plot No.391 to respondent No.4. On 19-2-1994, arbitration award was passed in favour of the petitioner whereby it was inter alia directed that Sri K.Madhusudhan Varma, who was arrayed as respondent No.6 in the arbitration proceedings, to hand over vacant possession of land of 6 meters in width on the Eastern side of his plot i.e., Plot No.390 to respondent No.3, which in turn shall deliver the same to the petitioner. C.T.A.No.144/95 filed by respondent No.3 against the said award was dismissed. E.P.No.117/2000 filed by the petitioner was allowed on 19-7-2002. While the matters stood thus, respondent No.4 filed a claim petition in E.P.No.117/2000 on 30-11-2005. While the said claim petition was pending, she

¶9

filed W.P.No.1570/2006 for a certiorari to quash award dated 19-2-1994 passed in favour of the petitioner. This court, after a detailed consideration of the Writ Petition, disposed of the same with the following observations :

¶10

“Admittedly the petitioner was not a party to any of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent i.e., either to the award proceedings in A.R.C.No.6/91-G before the third respondent or C.T.A.No.144 of 1995 before the fifth respondent, much less to the proceedings in this Court in W.P.No.20060 of 2002 and W.A.No.1651 of 2002. Though in E.P.No.117 of 2000, the Executing Court directed the bailiff to remove any person bound by the decree who may refuse to vacate the scheduled property, the subsequent directions are to make consequential adjustments in the plots situated on western side of plot No.390. The petitioner states that the plot owned by her i.e., plot No.391 is one of the plots situated on the western side of plot No.30 and therefore in the process of execution of the award dated 19-22004 in A.R.C.No.6/91-G, the constructions made by her would be demolished. Since admittedly the petitioner was not a party to any of the proceedings, it cannot be said that she is bound by the decree and therefore the apprehension of the petitioner appears to be without any basis. At any rate since the petitioner has already made an application before the Executing Court raising the above said objections and the same has been numbered as E.A.No.685 of 2005 and coming up for hearing, I am of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for this court to express any opinion and the Executing Court will consider all the objections raised by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. That apart, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not made a party to the earlier proceedings and the plea of the petitioner that the adjustments required to be made in pursuance of the award dated 19-2-1994 passed by the third respondent would effect the constructions made by her in her own plot, which involve several disputed questions of fact, it is also open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as available under the Act, either by way of raising a dispute under Section 61 of the Act or any other appropriate remedy.

¶11

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion with regard to the objections raised by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in E.A.No.685 of 2005 and to pass appropriate orders, after hearing all the parties concerned, in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere with any portion of the property of the petitioner in

¶12

plot No.391 situated at Road No.81, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, in execution of the award dated 19-2-1994 in A.R.C.No.6/91-G. The petitioner is also granted liberty to work out the appropriate remedy for redressal of her grievance as indicated above. No costs.”

¶13

Subsequent to the disposal of the Writ Petition as above, respondent No.4 has invoked the arbitration provision which was initially made over by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 and later respondent No.1 has recalled the file to himself and commenced the arbitration proceedings. At this stage, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶14

At the hearing Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 having already filed the claim petition in the E.P., she is not entitled to invoke the provision of arbitration and that respondent No.1 has committed a patent error in entertaining such application and initiating the arbitration proceedings.

¶15

I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that the petitioner was respondent No.1 in W.P.N.1570/2006 and allowed the order passed therein to become final. This court, in unequivocal terms, has given liberty to respondent No.4 to pursue the pending claim petition before the arbitrator besides raising a dispute under Section 61 of the Act or to avail any other appropriate remedy. In the face of the said liberty given by this court to respondent No.4 and in the absence of any challenge to the said order by the petitioner, she is precluded from raising objection to respondent No.4 availing the remedy under Section 61 of the Act. The petitioner cannot be permitted to go behind the order passed by this court which has attained

¶16

finality. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the arbitration proceedings already initiated by respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.4. The petitioner is entitled to contest the arbitration proceedings and raise all legally permissible grounds to resist the relief claimed by respondent No.4 before the arbitrator.

¶17

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos.23951/2007 and 27712/2008 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J

¶20

Date : 24-3-2011 AM

K. Sridevi v. The Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sridevi v. The Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Kumara Swamy Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

R.Reddi Krishna, Vs The Vayalpad Grampanchayat

Pilla Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its District Collector

S.K. Khairun Bee Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

U.Naga Raju Vs The District Collector, Kurnool

G.V. Rajendra Prasad, Vs The Commissioner of Cooperative and