IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.7987 of 2002 Between: N.Sanjeeva Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Arbitrator/C.S.R, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.7987 of 2002 O R D E R: Petitioner questions the order of the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in CTA.119/2000 dated 15.12.2001 confirming the order of the Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing) in ARC.17/1998 dated 10.12.1998. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the founder members of the 2nd respondent-the Neeraja Cooperative Housing Society which was started in 1978 with an objective of providing house sites to its members by acquiring lands and also to facilitate the members who constructed the houses of their own. After paying admission fee, the petitioner was given admission No.11. The Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent initiated action for acquiring the land at Tolichowki area, and in this regard the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards initial cost of the house plot to be allotted. The petitioner worked as member of the Managing Committee and President of the Society for some time and after expiry of his term, a new Managing Committee has taken up the affairs of the society and thereafter a letter dated 05.10.1990 was issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner informing him that as per the resolution of the general body which was held on 02.10.1990 with regard to Tolichowki land resolved to call for an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- in addition to Rs.5,000/- already paid by the members of the Society for allotment of plot in Tolichowki venture. The amount of Rs.25,000/- includes developmental, legal and miscellaneous expenditure. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to pay the said amount by 30.11.1990 so as to enable the society to proceed further in taking possession of the land by paying the balance amount to the landlords as agreed upon. The petitioner was also put on notice by the said letter to return the duly filled in affidavit on a requisite stamp paper of Rs.10/- to the Society within a week from the date of receipt of the letter so as to facilitate the society to submit the same to the Government to seek exemption from Urban Land Ceiling Act. 3. Pursuant to the letter dated 05.10.1990, the petitioner has neither deposited Rs.20,000/- nor filed duly filled in affidavit as required, but ultimately the petitioner sent a demand draft dated 14.10.1997 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the 2nd respondent society requesting to allot house plot in his favour, but the said demand draft was returned back to the petitioner vide Letter dated 27.11.1997 of the Commissioner for cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P.Hyderabad. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute under Sec.61 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act before the 1st respondent in ARC.17/1998 and the 1st respondent by Award dated 10.12.1998 held that the petitioner is having a house at Baghlingampally, Hyderabad which aspect was not disputed by the petitioner or his counsel and the petitioner being member of the society failed to file declaration stating that he or his spouse or dependent children do not possess a house or house plot and therefore, the petitioner failed to fulfil the requirements for allotment of the plot and the petitioner failed to establish his rights accrued on account of any procedure prescribed by the respondent society and the petitioner forfeited his rights by not fulfilling the conditions laid down by the respondent society. As against the said order, the petitioner filed CTA.119/2000 on the file of the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the said appeal while confirming the decision taken by the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 4. I have perused the order of the Arbitrator as well as the Cooperative Tribunal. 5. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for allotment of house plot by the 2nd respondent society in Tolichowki venture. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was a member of the 2nd respondent society and he paid a sum of Rs.5,000/-, but he did not pay the additional amount of Rs.20,000/- pursuant to the resolution passed by the general body in its meeting held on 02.10.1990 and also did not fulfil the requisite conditions of filing affidavit as per Rule-42(3) r/w.Rule-9 of the Bye-Laws of the 2nd respondent-Neeraja Cooperative Housing Society. Admittedly, the petitioner was not at all been allotted any plot by the 2nd respondent society. 7. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that as per the decision of the general body dated 02.10.1990, the general body unanimously resolved to call for an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- in addition to Rs.5,000/- from the members for allotment of plot in Tolichowki venture and the amount of Rs.25,000/- includes developmental and other charges and all the members like the petitioner were advised vide letter dated 05.10.1990 to pay the additional amount of Rs.20,000/- on or before 30.11.1990 to make the land into plots and to allot the same to the members of the society. Apart from making payment of additional amount of Rs.20,000/-, the members of the society were asked to submit an affidavit under Rule- 42(3) r/w.Rule-9 of the Bye-Laws of the society to file an application for allotment of plot in the prescribed pro-forma. 8. The petitioner having received the said letter dated 05.10.1990, failed to respond for the same and he neither paid the additional amount of Rs.20,000/- nor submitted duly filled in affidavit stating that he has no plot in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad as per the Bye- Laws of the society. The petitioner has also not sought for extension of time for making the said amount. Therefore, the 2nd respondent society again addressed two letters dated 18.09.1994 and 22.11.1994 under certificate of posting requesting the petitioner to comply with the said request of the society, but the petitioner failed to comply with the same. As the petitioner failed to pay the additional cost, he could not be allotted any plot and all the plots in Tolichowki venture have been allotted to the members who have complied with the conditions by paying the cost of the plot and other formalities. After exhausting all the plots, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 23.05.1997 enclosing with a draft dated 14.10.1997 requesting to allot one plot. Since all the plots have been allotted to the members and since the petitioner failed to perform his part of contract, no plot could be allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of plot in Tolichowki venture. Had the petitioner approached the society during the period of allotment of 1993-94, certainly the respondent society could have accommodated the petitioner by allotting the plot. It is stated that due to the inaction and failure on the part of the petitioner alone, the plot in Tolichowki venture could not be allotted. However, in future ventures, if the petitioner is interested, allotment can be made as he is member of the 2nd respondent society. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioner under Sec.61 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was considered and rightly rejected on the ground that the petitioner himself failed to comply with the requirements as specified in letter dated 05.10.1990 and the same was confirmed by the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal. No reply has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit with regard to his non-compliance of the requirements and failure to deposit the additional payment of Rs.20,000/-. It is further stated that in fact the petitioner also possessed a plot at Kantinagar and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of any plot. In the absence of filing any reply disputing the averments made in the counter, I am of the opinion that admittedly, the petitioner failed to comply with the legal requirements entitling him to allot a plot and in fact, whoever complied with the requirements as specified in letter dated 05.10.1990 have been considered and allotted plots in 1993 itself and as no plots are available in Tolichowki venture, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted plot earlier and there was no cancellation of the said plot is without any basis. As no plot has been allotted in favour of the petitioner, question of cancellation of allotment of plot does not arise. 10. The Writ Petition is without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 19.08.2010 Dsr