V. I !‘1 Uflj4 ø.i IT’ ADVhfl A * &.4.J LA £ Ja \JV Al .‘S AL nan tS _ sc. c Dated : i’his the otn day of June, 1998 lie. i1n.d Lic. rwMAn nAJArtAltAY WAfli isiiliO AiO.27911 uP 1996 w1si : mt. rianjuni, Adult, w/o oaulana Dastagiri .aheb, residing at i4auupalii of Ganorli village, Kundapura, U.K. (By Sri Sampath Anand ohettj, Aavocatej AND PKTIT ICNEP 1. lbs Karnataka Ap,ellate lrrbunal, retd,, by its ohair.nan, A..Buildirgs bangalore1. 2. The Joint Director of .r isheries, Lxufficio Joint hegistrar of to—operative Societies irectorate of xisheiss narnyalore. 3 the anaging Director tooth anara Di trict —Jfrerative fish araeting aeoeratiou I ang a to r a 4. 10 la aasta,izi ah b auutt, s/a aoutana theia Izaheb, near post office, (an 5 0tl1, i.a.Drict. (by dxi siaeerappz, fiGGi tar a—I cc :.—l; a—3 ana L—4 sarvedi aSO.Dai 1 13 I’ \.0 —2— This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annezure—A dated 22.7.96 passed by a—I in appeal No.420/95 and grant petitioner szch other and further reliefs. The petition coming on for preliminary hearing in B—Group this day, the Court made the following :— 0 RD S R The writ, petition is taken up with the consent of parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ potition challenges the order passed by the 1st respon dent—Tribunal at Annezare—A in Appeal No.420/95. The petitioner was the appellant before the 1st respondent in Appeal No.420/1995. The appeal before the let respondent was directed against the order passed by the 2nd respondent in a dispute, whereby the 2nd respondent con— firmed the conditional order of attachment in respect of the land bearing No.99/S measuring 28 guntas situated at Gangolli village, Kundapur. 1’ —3— 3. The facts, very brief•. ly, are the Society filed a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co—operative Societies Act for recovery of tite sum of i95,755.75 from the 4th respondent. Pursuant to this, an exparte order of attacninent before the award was passed on 25.1.1995, The petitioner in this writ petition submitted that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 103 of the K.C.S. Act and the docu ments produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal proves that she is the owner of the land in question and that the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the pendency of the civil dispute before the Civil Court. The learned counsel±br5tate submitted that the dispute and the appeal is not maintain able as the petitioner is not a p arty to the petition under Section 70 of the Act a4 tb land in question stands in the name of the 4th respondent and that the 4th respondent has set up the petitioner to if calienge the order of attacbment The Iribunal further held that it is always open for the peti tioner to aroach the Civil ourt to redress her grievances, if any, in accorcance with l. 4 iric the etitionez is not a member of the ociety sun since the çroperty admittedly stnus in the uae of the 4th respondent, the riouual was ertctLy justified n passing the order of attachment. in that view of the atter no incerIrence is cailed for The writ petition is dismisaed There is no order as to costs SCj, JUD