Karnataka High Court
Nagamma W/O Late Ishwar ... vs The Co-Operative Development ... on 9 August, 2023
Bench: Sachin Shankar Byssmj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8581
WP No. 103840 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 103840 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGAMMA W/O. LATE ISHWAR HANAMANTANAVAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIVA NAGAR-591307,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. RUKAMAVVA D/O. LATE ISHWAR HANAMANTANAVAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIVA NAGAR-591307,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT
MOHANKUMAR AND DEPARTMENTAL ARBITRATOR,
B SHELAR
GOKAK-591218,
Digitally signed by
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: DHARWAD
Date: 2023.08.10
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
13:27:21 -0700
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BELAGAVI-590001, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI JADISIDDESHWAR URBAN
CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,
SUNADOLLI-591310,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. SHRI GOUDAPPA S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA SASAALATTI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8581
WP No. 103840 of 2023
R/O: SHIVA NAGAR,
CHIDAMBARESHWAR TEMPLE, GOKAK-591218,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI SHANKAR S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALAGI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BEHIND LIC OFFICE,
MAHALINGESHWARA NAGAR,
GOKAK-591218,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. NINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KOUJALAGI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227,
TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI MURAGESH S/O. ARJUN ENAGI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE JOB,
R/O: KUMBAR GALLI, MARIHAL,
TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT MATHAPATHI, ADV. FOR R3; SRI MAHANTESH
R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI,
ADV. FOR R5 AND R6; SRI SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADV. FOR
R7; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
BEARING NO. J.R.L/L.B.N/85/2019-20 DATED: 09.10.2019
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN EX.
PET NO. 41/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE GOKAK AS PER ANNEXURE-B.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8581
WP No. 103840 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by subsequent purchaser
assailing the award passed against his vendor in
GRL/ABN/85/2019-20.
2. The petitioner's vendor's vendor by name
Goudappa Shivarudrappa Sasaalatti i.e. respondent No.4
having committed default in not repaying the amount,
compelled the respondent No.3-Society to raise a dispute
under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act
(for short "the Act"). The authority concerned after notifying
respondent No.4 has passed an award under Section 70 of
the Act. The present petitioner, who is second purchaser,
claims that even prior to raising of dispute under section 70
of the Act, his vendor had purchased the land in question
from respondent No.4. The first purchaser Siddappa
Jagamianavar in turn sold it to present petitioner under a
registered sale deed dated 26.10.2012. Therefore, the
captioned writ petition is filed assailing the award passed by
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8581
WP No. 103840 of 2023
the authority under section 70 of the Act. The petitioner
claims that he has purchased the property in 2012, which
was well within the knowledge of respondent No.3 and
therefore, the recovery proceedings initiated by respondent
No.3 without impleading petitioner and consequent auction
post-passing of the award are bad in law and same are not
sustainable. It is also contended by the petitioner that award
at Annexure-A is without affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner herein and therefore, the award is
sought to be quashed by knocking the doors of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the
counsel for the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the materials on record.
4. The contention of the petitioner that he has
purchased the property in 2012 much prior to respondent
No.3-Society raising a dispute under Section 70 of the Act
and therefore, alienations are saved cannot be acceded to.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Society makes a
submission that respondent No.4 has availed loan by
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8581
WP No. 103840 of 2023
executing a simple mortgage deed on 10.01.2011. If
respondent No.4 has mortgaged the properties in 2011 and
charge is reflected in the encumbrances, the present
petitioner cannot assert that the sale in his favour by the
first purchaser is saved.
5. Be that as it may. The petitioner's right and title
over the property in question which was mortgaged to
respondent No.3-Society cannot be examined in a writ
proceedings. Even if petitioner is not a party and feels
aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority
under Section 70 of the Act, he has efficacies remedy by way
of an appeal before the Tribunal. Reserving such liberty to
the petitioner, the present writ petition stands dismissed by
holding that it is not maintainable.
6. At this stage, counsel for petitioner would bring to
the notice of this Court that petitioner has a benefit of an
interim order and therefore seeks two weeks' time to present
an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the
interim order granted is extended only for a period of two
weeks.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8581
WP No. 103840 of 2023
7. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
