THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 26580 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioner claims to be a member of respondent No.1, namely Jubilee Hills Co-operative Building Society with Membership No. 1113, transferred to him from his father. He states that respondent No.1 had allotted Plot No. 564-A3-III to his father in the draw of lots on 10.07.1991. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golonda, on 02.08.1991, in pursuance of the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 505, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 12.06.1991, handed over possession of the said plot on the ground that it is a government land. As respondent No.1 was making arrangements to allot alternative plots to similarly situated persons, the petitioner states that he made request to respondent No.1 to allot alternative plot, and as no steps were taken, he filed A.R.C. No. 6 of 2000 against respondent No.1 before respondent No.3, namely the Arbitrator/Registrar of Co- operative Societies. Respondent No.3, passed award dated 23.06.2001 directing respondent No.1 to consider allotment of any of the three plots bearing Nos. 626-A or 860-A or 861-A to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 without implementing the said award, preferred appeal in C.T.A. No. 169 of 2001 on the file of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and even though, no stay of the award passed by respondent No.3, was granted by the Tribunal, yet respondent No.1 allotted the said three plots, to three persons, including plot bearing No. 861-A in favour of respondent No.2 herein. Immediately, the petitioner impleaded the said three persons in the C.T.A. Ultimately, the Tribunal by orders dated 23.06.2001, disposed of the said C.T.A. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 21993 of 2004, and this Court though passed interim orders restraining respondent No.2 from changing the nature of Plot No. 626-A and not to claim any equities pending disposal of the writ petition, but ultimately, by order dated 11.07.2006, disposed of the said writ petition with certain directions. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review petition in Rev. W.P.M.P. No. 24887 of 2006, and this Court by order dated 17.11.2006, disposed of the review petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise dispute under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 if aggrieved by the allotment of plots made by respondent No.1 in favour of the said three persons, including respondent No.2 herein. Thereafter, the petitioner states that he filed A.R.C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 and 3 of 2008 questioning the allotment of plots made by respondent No.1 in favour of the said three persons, including respondent No.2 herein, who was allotted Plot No. 626-A. In A.R.C. No. 1 of 2007, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2 of 2007 and obtained interim order restraining respondent No.2 from changing the physical features of Plot No. 626-A by construction or otherwise. Questioning the same, respondent No.2 filed writ petition in W.P. No. 4663 of 2007, and this Court by order dated 01.05.2007, granted permission to respondent No.2 to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the remedies as available to her in law. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed counter praying to vacate the interim order. Respondent No.3, upon considering the rival contention, by order dated 17.02.2007 made the interim order absolute. Questioning the said order, respondent No.2 filed appeal in C.T.A. No. 104 of 2008, and the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, vide orders dated 01.07.2009, impugned in this writ petition, vacated the interim order granted by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner. This Court by order dated 22.12.2009, while admitting the writ petition, in W.P.M.P. No. 34605 of 2009 ordered maintenance of status quo obtaining as on that date. Praying to vacate the said status quo order, respondent No.3 filed W.V.M.P. No. 35 of 2009 supported by counter affidavit stating that she is the senior-most member among the four persons, including the petitioner, entitled for allotment of the plot. That considering seniority of her husband, Plot No. 626-A was allotted to her. She contended that while the interim order passed in W.P. No. 21993 of 2004, restraining her from changing the nature of the Plot No. 626-A and not to claim any equities was in force, she did not make any constructions, and at that point of time, she was in the process of obtaining necessary clearances. After obtaining necessary clearances from the authorities concerned, she started constructions. The Tribunal, after satisfying for itself that the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case for grant of interim order, vacated the interim order passed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner, and the same does not call for interference. Respondent No.2 further contended that much prior to the petitioner filing A.R.C. No. 1 of 2007 and obtaining ex parte interim orders dated 17.02.2007, she made constructions, and as the ex parte interim orders came in the way of her making constructions, she filed writ petition in W.P. No. 4663 of 2007 and obtained interim orders dated 05.03.2007, and by virtue of the said orders, she continued the constructions. Again pursuant to the impugned order, she completed the external constructions, except for the internal works. They have also performed the house warming ceremony and occupied a portion thereof. Electricity and Water supply connections are also given. Hence, if at this stage, the completion of the works, which are at the final stages is stayed, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to her, and prayed that she is ready and willing to give an undertaking that the constructions made by her in the plot in question shall be subject to outcome of the arbitration proceedings in A.R.C. No. 1 of 2007 pending before respondent No.3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Though the W.V.M.P. is listed for hearing, but having regard to the nature of dispute involved in the writ petition, which is limited to the justification or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, vacating the interim order granted by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner pending disposal of A.R.C. No.1 of 2007, instead of disposing of the W.V.M.P., I deem it appropriate to dispose of the main writ petition itself. Admittedly, the petitioner has made a claim against respondent No.1 for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the plot that was allotted to his father, which subsequently was handed over by the Government to a third party. While the dispute as regards allotment of alternative plot was pending adjudication in arbitration proceedings at the appeal stage, it appears respondent No.1 allotted alternative plots to three persons, including respondent No.2, one of which plots, the petitioner claims is entitled to. Questioning the allotment of the said plots in favour of the said three individuals, including respondent No.2, the petitioner filed A.R.C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 and 3 of 2008, which are pending on the file of respondent No.3. Pending disposal of A.R.C. No.1 of 2007, respondent No.3 passed ex parte interim orders 17.02.2007 in favour of the petitioner, restraining respondent No.2 from making constructions. Respondent No.2 questioning the said order filed writ petition in W.P. No. 4663 of 2007 and obtained interim stay of the order of respondent No.3. And it is the case of respondent No.3 that even before the petitioner obtaining interim order and during the pendency of the interim order passed by the High Court, she made the constructions. However, respondent No.2 withdrew the writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies. Thereupon, respondent No.2 filed counter in the interim application in A.R.C. No.1 of 2007 before respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3, after considering the rival contentions, by orders dated 29.01.2008, refused to vacate the status quo orders. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.2 filed C.T.A. No. 104 of 2008 on the file of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal, upon considering the rival contentions, allowed the C.T.A. and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.3. While allowing the appeal, filed by respondent No.2, the Tribunal, in its orders, at paras, 19 to 22, observed as follows: The petitioner approaching the court shall prima facie establish his case. Simply because the petitioner has questioned the very allotment and main matter is pending, the petitioner is not entitled for the injunction automatically. The contentions of both parties and the record prima facie disclose that the 2nd respondent is a senior member to the petitioner. It is not open for the petitioner to contend that there is a violation of the orders passed in ARC No. 6 of 2000 in view of the orders passed in appeal CTA 169 of 2001 and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in writ petition. After allotment, registration was done. The 2nd respondent was put into possession and she is making construction. That is evident by the municipal sanction obtained by the petitioner. Till the disposal of the main ARC No. 1/2007, if the 2nd respondent who is senior to the petitioner is restrained in asserting her rights in the property, she will be put to irreparable loss. Balance of convenience is also prima facie in favour of 2nd respondent. The record and contentions of the parties has not disclosed any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. However, the effect of allotment and the other reasons have to be decided while disposing the main appeal. In the even of success by the petitioner, it is incumbent on the part of the 2nd respondent that she shall hand over vacant plot to the petitioner after demolition of the structures on her own cost. In the result, the appeal is allowed and status quo order passed in I.A. No. 2/2007 in ARC No. 1/2007 is hereby vacated. However, in view of the pendency of the main case, the appellant is hereby directed not to create any third party interest in the property. Each party is directed to bear their own costs. Though the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 in spite of status quo orders granted by this Court, went ahead and made constructions, the fact remains, respondent No.2 much before filing of ARC by the petitioner before respondent No.3, during the pendency of the ARC and after disposal of CTA, claims to have to have made the constructions. However, inasmuch as, it is the specific case of respondent No.2 that the constructions are almost complete, that electricity and water connections are also given, and that except the work relating to fixing of doors etc., is pending, and that she had spent huge amounts for construction, and having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.2 that she is ready and willing to give an undertaking that she will not claim equities in the event the petitioner succeeds in the ARC, I am of the considered opinion that there is no need to go into the question as to whether the constructions made by the petitioner are in violation of the status quo order, much less interfere with the impugned order, particularly when it has been passed based on prima facie satisfaction, and pending adjudication of the main questions involved in the main ARC, namely as to the justification or otherwise of allotment of plot in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1, and whether the petitioner or respondent No.2 is entitled to allotment of the plot, on priority. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that interests of justice would be met by sustaining the impugned order with the following directions: The impugned order passed by A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, is sustained. Respondent No.2 is entitled to complete the constructions in the plot in question. However, she shall not create any third party interest in the property. In the event, the petitioner succeeds in the ARC, the petitioner shall not claim any equities. Respondent No.3, namely the Arbitrator/Registrar of Co-operative Societies, is directed to dispose of the ARC expeditiously. Any observations made hereinabove, shall not influence the decision in ARC, which shall be decided on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 17th June, 2010. KSR