HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32232 of 2011 Dated: 08-12-2011 Between: Vadla Pandu …Petitioner AND Elanki Sadasiva Reddy and another Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32232 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner invoked the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court to call for the records relating to the orders in L.G.C.No.14 of 2008 dated 24.3.2011 and to quash the same. Petitioner-applicant claims to have purchased 200 sq.yds. of site in Sy.No.249, Local Industrial Employees Cooperative House Building Society, Patelguda Village, Pathancheruvu Mandal, Medak District through sale deed No.18009/2006 dated 22.7.2006 from V.S.Brahmam, who purchased the same from the Secretary, Local Industrial Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited (for short ‘Society’) being member of the said Society. He laid the above L.G.C. alleging that the first respondent herein grabbed the property of the petitioner. The respondent contested the claim of the petitioner contending that the Society purchased Ac.47.00 gts. of land, made it into plots and allotted them to its members for housing purpose. As the members failed to construct houses and the plots were coming under third party encroachments, the Society passed resolution to sell away the plots and distribute the sale proceeds amongst the members. As per the bye-laws of the Society, member has to surrender the unutilized plots to the Society. The District Co-operative Officer accorded permission for implementation of the said resolution. The Society published a notice in Enadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 11.2.2004 informing the public that any transaction by the members of the Society in respect of the land will be contrary to bye-laws. The vendor of the applicant-petitioner herein also surrendered his plot to the Society and the Society sold the unutilized plots admeasuring Ac.20.10 gts. to the respondent herein. As such no member of the Society is having any plot in the said land. The respondent constructed a College in the said land and is running an Engineering College for the last three years. The petitioner herein in collusion with his vendor created the sale deed in order to claim the land of the respondent. On the above rival pleadings, necessary issues were settled for trail. The applicant-petitioner herein himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. The respondent himself examined as R.W.1 and the President of the Society was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.21 were marked on his behalf. Admittedly, the first respondent herein purchased the property in question which is an extent of Ac.20.10 gts. under the sale deeds- Exs.B.6 to B.10 in the year 2005 and Ex.B.11 in the year 2007, constructed a building and running an Engineering College therein. Whereas the petitioner herein purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 22.7.2006-Ex.A.1 from V.S.Brahmam. As per bye-law No.43 of the Society, in case, if the Society comes to a conclusion that its members failed to carry out the dwelling activities in pursuant to objects of its bye-laws within the time framed, the Society may resume the land/site from the members by payment of the amount towards the cost and the land/site so resumed will be put to sale to a non-member with the previous sanction of the Registrar. Admittedly, the Society resumed the land from the vendor of the petitioner and others and after obtaining permission from the Registrar, the same was transferred to the first respondent herein. Therefore, once the land was already resumed by the Society, the petitioner’s vendor does not have any title or right over the property except for the value of the property as per the bye-laws of the Society. Whether the vendor of the petitioner surrendered the land in terms of the bye-laws for enabling the Society to transfer the said property in favour of the third parties, is a dispute touching the constitution-management and the business of the Society, which can be resolved in terms of Section 61 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Therefore, the civil Court will not have jurisdiction to resolve such dispute. In that view of the matter and since the petitioner’s vendor has not been examined to deny his signature on Ex.B.18-Minutes Book, the learned Land Grabbing Court drew an adverse inference against the petitioner and dismissed the L.G.C. holding that the sale deed set up by the first respondent is true, valid and binding on the petitioner. No perversity is discernable with the findings recorded by the Land Grabbing Court warranting interference by this Court. However, if the petitioner wants to claim any right through his vendor, who was a member of the Society, for compensation in respect of the land resumed by the Society, he can raise a dispute as contemplated under Section 61 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and can avail the remedies available under law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ DECEMBER 08, 2011 R.KANTHA RAO, J. Tsr.