IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.13800 of 2003 BETWEEN Air Force Officers Co-op. Housing Society Limited, Secunderbad. ... PETITIONER AND A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad rep. by Presiding Officer & two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION MR. B. NALIN KUMAR MR. ASHOK ANAND KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Air Force Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad, assails the common judgment dated 08.04.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Tribunal, Hyderabad in CTA.Nos.133 and 203 of 2000 and seeks restoration of the judgment dated 10.08.1999 passed by the Co-operative Sub-Registrar and Arbitrator, O/o Divisional Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad East Division, Ranga Reddy in ARC.No.10/99-G. 2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the petitioner – society filed one single writ petition against the common judgment in two separate appeals. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on this technical ground. However, as the matter was admitted and has been pending before this Court for the past several years, I deem it appropriate to deal with the matter on merits. 3. The third respondent herein was allotted plot No.29 (renumbered as plot No.40) admeasuring 730 sq. yards by the petitioner – society. He made a request on 09.03.1983 for allotment of an additional extent of 164 sq. yards for the purpose of ensuring symmetry of the boundary wall in line with his neighbour’s wall and to keep the wall parallel to the road. The managing committee of the petitioner – society, in its meeting held on 23.09.1983, decided to accept the request of the third respondent and allot him an extent of 164 sq. yards @ Rs.25/- per sq. yard. He was therefore called upon under letter dated 11.10.1983 to pay a sum of Rs.4,100/- for the said land and was informed that if he failed to clear the said amount within three months from the date of receipt of the letter, interest would be charged @ 12% per annum. Admittedly, the third respondent remitted the sum of Rs.4,100/- by way of a cheque under his letter dated 18.09.1991. However, the petitioner – society returned the same as the third respondent had failed to pay the interest component as per its letter dated 11.10.1983. Thereafter, under its letter dated 15.03.1997, the petitioner – society called upon the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,31,520/- for the allotted extent of 164 sq. yards @ Rs.800/- per sq. yard. This amount was arrived at on the basis of the market value prevailing as on that date. The third respondent contested this claim on the ground that the petitioner – society could not charge him the market value as it was not in a position to alienate the said land and register the same in his favour. The petitioner – society, on the other hand, however, reiterated its demand for payment of the market value as aforestated. The issue was therefore referred to Co-operative Sub-Registrar and Arbitrator, O/o Divisional Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad East Division, Ranga Reddy. 4. By way of his Award dated 10.08.1999 the Arbitrator, having dealt with this dispute in ARC.No.10/99-G, upheld the claim of the petitioner – society and directed the third respondent to pay the sum demanded or surrender the allotted extra land within the stipulated time. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad by way of CTA.Nos.133 and 203 of 2000. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that if the petitioner – society was not in a position to register the land in favour of the third respondent it had no right to charge the market value for the allotted land. It accordingly set aside the Award of the Arbitrator and directed the third respondent to pay the sum of Rs.4,100/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum with effect from April 1983 and directed the petitioner – society to enter the new measurements in its records along with the details of the additional payments made by the third respondent under intimation to him. Aggrieved by the said common judgment, the petitioner – society filed the present writ petition. 5. The admitted facts of the case reflect that the third respondent tendered the amount of Rs.4,100/- as long back as in the year 1991 itself and it was the petitioner – society which refused the payment on the ground that the third respondent had failed to pay the interest component as per its letter dated 11.10.1983. Having deliberately refused payment of the principal sum, the petitioner – society kept quiet for over of period of six years and it was only in the year 1997 that the petitioner – society came up with a demand for payment of the market value. As the third respondent had tendered the principal amount due in 1991, he could not have been made liable for payment of the said amount by substituting the market value of the land thereafter. If the petitioner – society was aggrieved by the failure on the part of the third respondent to pay the interest, it could have agitated for the same after accepting the payment of the principal amount. As it was the petitioner – society itself that refused this payment, it cannot be permitted to penalize the third respondent thereafter for non-payment of the same. The demand of the petitioner – society that the third respondent should pay the market value of the allotted land cannot be countenanced as it is an admitted position that the petitioner – society cannot alienate the same to the third respondent and register a sale deed in his favour. That being so, there is no lawful basis for the petitioner – society to insist upon payment of the market value. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the common judgment of the Tribunal directing payment of the principal sum along with interest from the initial date meets the ends of justice and does not warrant interference by this Court even on merits. The writ petition is devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J April 21, 2011 DSK