K BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ^T BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION (C.) N0. ^(.j /2008 Kuber Grih Nirman Co-operative Sodeties Limited, through - its PresidenJ—Sevak Ram Pandey, 1ll'.'•••" ^^••,"'A.^'-"""'-..•••"' son of Late Gend Ram Pandey, •""&)l;^"'fPt?:/""" R/o.Rohanipuram, Tahsil & District •"'A-d^}•••"" _ . Raipur (C.G.) 1\ ^. ^ ?^P1 ^'^^ c^^^°^- VERSUS Ku. Kiran Baghel, Daughter of Shri Ashwani Kumar Baghel, R/o. C- 258, Rohanipuram, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rlng Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ring Road No.L Telibandha, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Sodeties, G.E. Road, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l^ ;3. /4. 01. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER l=Lahoye. 4'/' 1 ? 8 PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1361 OF 2008 Kuber Grih Nirman Co-operative Societies Limited RESPONDENTS Versus Ku. Kiran Baghel & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 13620F^008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kuber Grih Nirman Co-operative Societies Limited Versus Ku. Jyoti Baghel & Others ^ Postforpronouncement ofjudgment&orderon/^.dayofAugust, 2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^' PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1361 OF 2008 Kuber Grih Nirman Co-operative Societies Limited RESPONDENTS Versus Ku. Kiran Baghel & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1362 OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kuber Grih Nirman Co-operative Societies Limited Versus Ku. Jyoti Baghel & Others (Writ petitions underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Alok Nigam, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. (Delivered on this 12.^ayofAugust,2011) 1. Both the petitions involved common question of law and facts and, as such, the same are being disposed of by a cornmon order. 2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners, are that the respondent No.1, in both the petitions, were allotted a plot by the petitioner co-operative societies, under the scheme at Rohanipuram, Raipur. The petitioner co-operative societies having come to know that there is a violation of model byelaws under Section 43(3) of the Housing Co-operative Societies adopted by the petitioner societies and further the respondent No.1 were minor, and on wrong submission of the facts, they were allotted a plot bearing No.C278 and C279 respectively filed a suit before the Deputy Registrar on 29.07.2000 and 05.04.2000 respectively, seeking quashing of registration of suo!te6a||e aqi ieq) punoj6 94} uo jeqijn^ p|9l) SBM t| -jejtSiOsy AindeQ oqi sjopq sseo sqi Bui|y ui UOIIBIILUII ^o punoj6 sqi uo inq SIUSLU uo iou ]B9dde sqi p9MO||e ssiisioog sAiiejadooo 'jejtsiBsy luior 941 •SO/y/ZZW(l.)ZZ pue So/y/l.ZW(Ozz'ON sseo |esdde ui jB^siBay luiop aqi sjo^eq psjjepjd SBM '0961 'PV 341 10 (Ozz uo]pes jepun |eedde ue 'isuiBBesjsqi 'oitiu! qe pioA |e6e||i SBM iuauJio||B sqi p uoiiejisiBej sqi 'qons se 'pue IUSLUIO||B ^o eujii sqi ie SJOUILU SJ8M Asqi pe^ sq} ui usqM sjofeLU se [.'ON }uepuodssj au^ Ouiieoipui seieoyiijso 9s|ej ^o siseq gqi uo peuieiqo SBM siues 9qi }eqi Buipioq )ueiuio||e sqt p3||3oueo ssiieioog eAjtejsdooo 'jejisiBey AindsQ 94} '(s-d ejnxeuuv) SOOZ'60'SI- psiep JspJO apiA 'jsyeajoqi '|euy oLueoeq Ae|ap p punojB eqi uo jsuoiiiiad sqi p uoiioefqo sq) Buipafsj jopjo eqi 'jeuoiiiied sqi JO^ lesunoo psujesi 0} 6uipjoooe 'snqi 'jBJfsiBay A}ndsQ sqi Aq pessed jspjo 941 6u!LUJ!ye passiiusip sjaM eaies aqi (g-j ejnxeuuv) £OOZ'80'/Z psiep jepjo Aq pue j9L|i8Boi pjesq ej9M seseo uoisiAej eq} qiog 'A|8A!i39ds9j ZOOZ'£l.-e»-08 PUB ZOOZ'I.I.-BX-OS'ON sseo uoisiAoj Buueeq 'jndiey 'seiisioog 8M)Bjsdo-oo 'jejisi6sy }wof eqi ajo^eq '0961. 'PV 9411° (v)08 uoipss jspun UOISIASJ e psjjs^ajd siuepuodssj aqi 'isu!e6esjsqi 'sjesA xis p pousd UOIIBIILUII 3L)} uiqiiM pe|y SBM eseo 9L|i 'L|ons se 'pue suop SBM qoesjq p86a||B 94) Aep sqi 0104 SIJB)S UO!)B}!UJ!| sqi }eqt 6uip|oq uoipefqo sqi pgssiuisip 'SJSUBLU eqi q)oq ui passed 'OOOZ'SO't'l- psiep jepjo Aq 'jejisiBsy A)nd8Q sqi 'eiqeuieiuieLU )ou SBM 9LUBS 9q) 'snqi 'sjesA xis ^o pousd e jsye jejisiBsy A}ndsa 341 sjoj.aq ps|y SBAA sseo eqi pue 9861.'1.0'6Z uo pejsisiBaj SBAA uoiisenb ui io|d 941 p IUSLU}O||B aqi leqi Buiieis Ae|9p p punoj6 aq} uo sseo sqi io lessiLUSip jo^ C096f. 'PV 8W,, Voqs joi) 0961- ')OV seiisioos SMiejado-oo S4l lo (OS9 uoipag jspun uoiieoiidde ue ps|y [.'ON luspuodsoj 941 •A|9A!iosdssj '9ZS/. pue l.eez-ON uoiiBJisiBsj QQ6\,'W6Z psiep pasp lu8Luio|]e sqi z 3 of non-completion of the construction were within three years was not correct, as the period was extended two times for one year and in that event the allotment could be cancelled only after completion offive years. 5. It was further held that the constructions have been made and no case after a period of 15 years was maintainable. Furi:her appeal was preferred before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was dismissed on 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-7) affirming the finding that since construction of the plot was completed, therefore, after 15 years the same could not have been cancelled. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the issue of iimitation has been settled by the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 14.08.2000. Thereagainst, a revision was also dismissed by the Joint Registrar on 27.08.2003 (Annexure P-3), it was not open in appeal for consideration, as there was no challenge against the order dated 27.08.2003, which became final. The Registrar, as well as the Court of the Joint Registrar, has re-opened the issue, which stood concluded after dismissal ofthe revision on 27.08.2003 by the Joint Registrar. 7. Learned counsel further submits that by the order dated 18.11.2005, a direction to maintain status quo was granted and on that date clearly construction was going on and the construction was not complete, thereafter, the status quo order granted by the Deputy Registrar was never set aside or modified. Thus, if the construction was reported to be complete before the Joint Registrar that was either in defiance of the status quo order passed by the Deputy Registrar or the fact was not correctly recorded. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits in support ofthe orders passed by the Registrar. 9. Having considered all the facts, it is apparent that the question of limitation attained finality. Thus, the Joint Registrar, by subsequent order dated -t.: --,.. 22.02.2007 (Annexure P-6) could not have set aside or modified,even impliedly the earlier order dated 27.02.2003 passed by the Joint Registrar, / in a revision against the rejection of objection of the respondents with regard to maintainability of the case on the ground of limitation. Secondly, the finding that the construction was complete also appears to be contrary to the facts, as it appears that the status quo order passed by the Deputy Registrar has completely been ignored by the Registrar while affirming the order passed by the Joint Registrar, which had set aside the order dated 5.9.2005 (Annexure P-5) bythe Deputy Registrar. 10. In view of foregoing, it appears to be expedient and proper to remand back the matter to the Registrar to decide the case afresh, without being influenced by observation made hereinabove, in accordance with law and on its own merit, confining to the subject matter of the case, after affording opportunities of hearing to all the parties. 11. Accordingly, the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 31.12.2007 and the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 22.02.2007, are set aside. The petitions are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Registrar for consideration afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law and on its own merits and perspective. No order asto costs. Sd/- SaUshK.A&nihom Judge ashok