DR B M BASAVANNA vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO W.A. No.15922/2011 (CS-RES) BETWEEN : DR B M BASAVANNA S/O LATE BENNE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD STREET II BLOCK, NEW INCOME TAX LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI I STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 072. ...APPELLANT ( By Sri. M SIVAPPA ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES -1 BANGALORE URBAN, DISTRICT, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE.

2 THE BANGALORE CITY EMPLOYEES HOUSING AND SOCIAL WELFARE CO-OP. SOCEITY LTD., NO.63, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE 23. ...RESPONDENTS ( By SRI. M. KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R-1, SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR C/R-2)

- 2 - This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5066/2008 (CS-RES) dated 25.07.2011 and to allow the writ petition by allowing this appeal. This writ appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, K.L.MANJUNATH. J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant being a Member of the 2nd respondent – Society raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Act, 1959, before the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Bangalore Urban District, challenging the demand made by the 2nd respondent in enhancing Rs.5/- per sq. ft. as bad in law. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies instead of considering the question that was raised before him, dismissed the dispute on the ground that since BDA had already allotted another site to the appellant. The appellant has to select only one site. Accordingly, by issuing certain direction the dispute was dismissed. Against which, the appellant filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 430/2003, which appeal also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the concurrent

- 3 - findings, a writ petition was filed, which was also dismissed on the same ground. Challenging the legality and correctness of these three orders, the present appeal is filed. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have noticed that whatever question before the Deputy Registrar by the appellant, it was the right of the 2nd respondent – Society to enhance the value of the site allotted to the appellant. But the society has not cancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellant on the ground that the BDA has already allotted another site to the appellant. Taking note of the said things, it was beyond the scope of the dispute, an erroneous order has been passed by the Deputy Registrar, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, so also the learned Single Judge. 4. According to us, if really a second site has already been allotted to the appellant by the BDA, it is for the BDA to initiate action to cancel the second allotment. The question that was to be considered by the Deputy Registrar was whether the representation for site was justifiable and whether the appellant can be compelled to make the aforesaid demand.

- 4 - 5. Therefore, we are of the view that all the orders have to be set aside and matter required to be reconsidered by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies afresh in accordance with law. If really the 2nd respondent is of the opinion that the appellant has already secured a site under allotment from BDA and if possession is already taken by the appellant, liberty is granted to the respondent No.2 to take action in accordance with law. If the site allotted to the appellant can be cancelled in the process known to law. 6. Granting such liberty, this appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Rbv*