Disposed

Chinnaji v. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal

Telangana HC17 Jun 2013WP/5958/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an arbitrator's order confirming objections to a plot allotment application. The Court declined to decide on jurisdiction issues, directing the arbitrator to dispose of the pending application within four months without being influenced by prior orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with a direction to the 2nd Respondent to dispose of ARC No.2 of 2007 within four months.

Chinnaji Vs The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.5958 of 2010

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dt.02-03-2010 in C.T.A.No.1 of 2010 of the 1^st respondent confirming the order dt.05-11-2009 in A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶4

2. The 4^th respondent herein filed A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 under Section 61 of the AP Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 2^nd respondent to declare the allotment of plot No.861-A by 3^rd respondent in favour of V.Janardhan Babu, father of petitioners 2 and 3 and husband of 1^st petitioner (herein after referred to as the ‘allottee’) as illegal, to set aside the same, consequently direct 3^rd respondent to allot it to 4^th respondent and to direct the 3^rd respondent to pass on title of the said plot and possession thereof to 4^th respondent.

¶5

3. The allottee was a member of 3^rd respondent society and had been allotted the said plot by 3^rd respondent by resolution

¶6

dt.23-11-2001. Subsequently the said plot was registered in favour of allottee under registered sale deeds dt.11-12-2001 in document No.1685 and 1686 of 2002. The allottee died in 2007 and on his death the petitioners inherited the said property. No Objection Certificate was not issued to the petitioners by 3^rd respondent and therefore, the petitioners could not make any construction in the above plot.

¶7

4. The petitioners contend that the proceedings initiated by 4^th respondent before 2^nd respondent are not

¶8

maintainable and 2^nd respondent had no jurisdiction to invalidate the registered sale deeds executed in favour of allottee since no such power is conferred on 2^nd respondent; that such a power is conferred only on Civil Court as per provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882; that father of 4^th respondent had been allotted plot No.564-A3-III on 10-07-1991 and thereafter it was tranferred to 4^th respondent in 1994; the father of 4^th respondent and 3^rd respondent society had jointly filed O.S.No.378 of 2002 against Sant Nirankari Mandal for declaration and recovery of possession of said plot but the said suit was dismissed and an appeal there against was pending in C.C.C.A.No.78 of 2009 before this Court; as the original allottee i.e. father of 4^th respondent is continuing the legal action for getting possession of the plot allotted to him, it is not open to 4^th respondent to claim the plot allotted to the allottee; that 4^th respondent initiated arbitration dispute in A.R.C.No.6 of 2000 against 3^rd respondent-Society for allotment of alternate plot and it was allowed on

¶9

23-06-2001 directing the 3^rd respondent to allot a plot from among 626-A, 860-A or 861-A; aggrieved thereby, 3^rd respondent filed C.T.A.No.169 of 2001 before 1^st respondent which was dismissed on 15-10-2004; but with modification that these plots were already allotted by date of order in A.R.C. and so plot No.473-D-III, if available, be considered for allotment to 4^th respondent by considering the seniority in between pending awardees or any other plot from available plots in future; that 4^th respondent had filed W.P.No.21993 of 2004 in this court; the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 11-07-2006 directing 3^rd respondent-society to consider feasibility of allotting plot No.473-D-III in favour of

¶10

petitioner therein subject to seniority as per law; the 4^th respondent had made no attempt to get plot No.473-D-III as per the order of this Court; and he cannot be permitted to now seek plot No.861-A allotted to the allottee.

¶11

5. The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance o n M.Venkata Ramana and Another Vs. A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and Others^[1] and contended that the relief of cancellation of a registered sale deed executed by 3^rd respondent in favour of the allottee can only be granted by a Civil Court and not by 2^nd respondent exercising jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Act.

¶12

6. I have noted the contentions of the parties.

¶13

7. It is not out of place to mention that the allottee filed W.P.No.9275 of 2007 in this Court to declare the action of 2^nd respondent in entertaining A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 at the instance of 4^th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the law of Limitation and seeking a consequential direction forbearing the 2^nd respondent from proceeding with the matter any further apart from declaring that an interim order dt.17-02-2007 passed by 2^nd respondent in A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 is illegal, improper and unjust.

¶14

8. By order dt.19-04-2008 this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following order:

¶15

“Petitioner seeks to assail the action of the 2^nd respondent in entertaining A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 filed by the 4^th respondent and passing interim order of status quo, dated 17.02.2007, in the said A.R.C.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Apparently, there is a dispute between the petitioner and

¶17

the 4^th respondent with regard to allotment of site and the 4^th respondent filed A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 before the 2^nd respondent and the same is pending. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2^nd respondentArbitrator has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and the 4^th respondent is not having any locus to file the ARC. These factual aspects cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and it is always open to the petitioner to raise all the aspects before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall consider the issues with regard to the jurisdiction and the locus of the 4^th respondent to file A.R.C.No.2 of 2007, before deciding the main issues, and pass appropriate orders, duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent. If any party is aggrieved by the final order that would be passed in the A.R.C., then he can approach this Court seeking redressal of his grievance. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶18

9. A reading of the above order shows that this Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it directed the petitioners to raise issues relating to locus and jurisdiction of 4^th respondent before 2^nd respondent. It had directed 2^nd respondent to consider both issues before deciding the main issues and pass appropriate orders duly affording an opportunity to petitioner as well as 4^th respondent observing that if any party is aggrieved by the final order that would be passed in the A.R.C., then he can approach this Court seeking redressal of his grievance.

¶19

10. It appears that pursuant to this order, petitioners raised the above objections before 2^nd respondent and by order dt.05-11-2009, he rejected the said objections. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed C.T.A.No.1 of 2010 before 1^st respondent. By order dt.02-03-2010, the 1^st respondent also confirmed the order passed by 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent directed 2^nd

¶20

respondent to proceed with the matter uninfluenced by the findings given by it in its order dt.02-03-2010.

¶21

11. In view of the fact that the allottee during his lifetime had approached this Court in W.P.No.9275 of 2007 assailing the action of 2^nd respondent in entertaining A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 filed by 4^th respondent and in the said writ petition, this Court had declined to exercise jurisdiction and directed him to raise the issues of locus of 4^th respondent as well as jurisdiction of 2^nd respondent before 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that it would not be proper for this Court again to entertain this writ petition and decide the issue raised by the petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of 2^nd respondent and the locus of 4^th respondent when the main A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 is pending before 2^nd respondent.

¶22

12. Leaving it open to the petitioners to raise these issues, if necessary, in an appeal under Section 76 of the Act before 3^rd respondent or before this Court in a Writ Petition, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to 2^nd respondent to dispose of A.R.C.No.2 of 2007 filed by 4^th respondent within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court makes it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the locus of 4^th respondent or jurisdiction of 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent is directed to dispose of the A.R.C. uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or in the order dt.02-03-2010 in C.T.A.No.1 of 2010.

¶23

13. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶24

___________________________________

¶25

JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶26

Date :17-06-2013 kvr

¶27

[1] 2010 (4) ALT 54 (D.B.)

Chinnaji v. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnaji v. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Penta Venkata Rao, Vs Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society

Lakki Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Akbal Vs Chinta Venkata Reddy

Smt. Bobbili Parvathi Vs Sri Atla Ananda Rao

M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Akinapalli Nappinamma, Vs The District Collector