Bombay High Court
Smt.Nalini W/O.Keshavrao Bambal ... vs Irri.Staff Coop. Housing Society ... on 15 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.3796.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3796 OF 2000.
1] Smt. Nalini w/o Keshavrao
Bambal, aged about 60 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o 12, Mire Layout,
Umred Road, Nagpur.
2] Smt. Anjali w/o Ganeshrao
Netke, aged about 32 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur. ..... PETITIONERS.
....Versus....
1] The Irrigation Staff Cooperative
Housing Society Limited,
A Registered Cooperative
Housing Society, having its
registered Office at Plot No.6,
Irrigation Colony, Trimurty
Nagar, Nagpur-22, through
its Elected Secretary, of the
Society at the Office of Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, City-1,
2] Nagpur Improvement Trust,
Through its Chairman, Civil
Lines, Nagpur,
3] Divisional Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur,
4] Shri Ashok Govind Jathar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.
Service, R/o Plot No. 87,
Dindayal Nagar, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:29:46 :::
2 WP.3796.00
5] Deleted. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. M.D. Samel, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.
3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2017.
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER , J.)
1] Heard for sometime.
2] It is not in dispute that the respondent no.4 Shri A.G.
Jathar approached Cooperative Court, Nagpur under Section 91 of
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act against the action of
respondent no.1 Cooperative Housing Society allegedly subdividing
plot no. 5 into plot nos. 5A and 5B and thereafter allotting it to
petitioners before this Court. That dispute has been adjudicated upon
against him by the Cooperative Court at Nagpur. The judgment has
been delivered by Cooperative Court, Nagpur on 18.3.2016 in said
Dispute No. 174/98. Copy of the said judgment produced by Mr.
M.D. Samel, learned Advocate for petitioner, is taken on record and
marked as Exh. 'X'. While dismissing dispute, the Cooperative Court
3 WP.3796.00
has found that disputant before it did not prove that sale-deeds in
favour of present petitioners in respect of plot no. 5 by Society were
illegal. It also held that dispute was not maintainable and the
Cooperative Court had no jurisdiction. It answered one issue in
favour of respondents and held that present petitioners proved that
plot nos. 5A & 5B were allotted in their favour. It also held that
disputant before it, namely, Shri Jathar did not establish the allotment
of plot no. 5 in his favour or handing over of its possession to him. It
also held that disputant could not establish division of plot no. 5 into
two plots to be illegal.
3] Against this judgment dated 18.3.2016 the disputant Shri
A.G. Jathar has approached Cooperative Appellate Court and that
appeal is still pending.
4] It is, therefore, obvious that claim in the present petition is
contingent upon the adjudication of appeal by Cooperative Appellate
Court. In the present Writ Petition, one Shrikant Jathar alleged to be
cousin of Shri A.G. Jathar wrote a letter to Chairman of Nagpur
Improvement Trust on 7.4.1998 and complained that as per Rules the
plot no. 5 could not have been sub-divided into plot nos. 5-A and 5-B.
Taking cognizance of this letter, on 29.7.1998 the respondent No.2
4 WP.3796.00
Nagpur Improvement Trust issued a communication and cancelled no
objection certificates issued earlier by it for sale of bifurcated plot nos.
5A and 5B.
5] In view of judgment delivered by Cooperative Court on
18.3.2016 the contentions in letter dated 7.4.1998 sent by Shrikant
Jathar to respondent no.2 NIT become meaningless. With the result,
the impugned communication dated 29.7.1998 based upon it also
cannot be sustained.
6] However, considering the fact of pendency of appeal
between parties and, therefore, the fact that judgment of Cooperative
Court has still not attained finality, we find that interest of justice can
be met with by expediting the appeal which is pending before
Cooperative Appellate Court. Learned A.G.P. appearing for
respondent no.3 points out that Cooperative Appellate Court is not
party to present proceedings. However, it is not necessary.
7] We find that respondent no.2 has to abide by adjudication
of controversy by Cooperative Court or then by Cooperative Appellate
Court as the case may be.
5 WP.3796.00
8] Hence, with direction to Cooperative Appellate Court to
decide the pending appeal before it within next four months and with
further direction to respondent no.2 to abide by said adjudication, we
partly allow this Writ Petition and dispose it of. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
