Karnataka High Court
G Parameshwara vs Vittalnagar House Building ... on 6 March, 2024
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 45550 OF 2013 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
G PARAMESHWARA,
S/O LATE GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.125, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
SRINIVASANAGAR, BSK 1 STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560050.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI G CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . VITTALNAGAR HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.68, VITTALNAGARA,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. SRI N VENKATARAJU,
S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED MAJOR,
THE THEN PRESIDENT OF VITTALNAGAR HOUSE,
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
NO.68, VITTALNAGAR,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560018.
3. SRI A AROKIYASWAMY,
SRI ANTHONY CRUZE, AGED MAJOR,
THE THEN HON. SECRETARY OF VITTALNAGAR HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
NO.68, VITTALNAGAR, CHAMARAJPET,
2
BANGALORE - 560 018.
4. SRI SUNDARAPPA,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED MAJOR,
NOW WORKING AS CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA, NO.1,
ALI ASKER ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 051.
5. SRI H.K JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O LATE K P KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.266, 10TH D CROSS,
26TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR I PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.
6. SMT A.N LATHA,
W/O B.S.GOWRISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.334/28, 14TH CROSS, II BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.
7. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
BANGALORE REGION,
PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 H/S
V/O/DT: 16.01.2017 NOTICE TO R2, R3 AND R5 ARE D/W
R4 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,
SRI D L N RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI A SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6,
SRI SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ON
08.04.2013 IN APPEAL NO.361/2010 ON ITS FILE AT ANNX-A.
3
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 09TH FEBRUARY 2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The writ petitioner is assailing the order dated
08.04.2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.361/2010, setting aside an award passed under Section 70 of
the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for brevity 'Act of
1959').
2. In terms of the impugned order, the petition under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959, to declare the petitioner as the
absolute owner of a house site and to cancel the registered sale
deed in favour of present respondent No. 6, is rejected. Hence, the
present Writ Petition impugning the order of the Tribunal.
3. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 are the members of
respondent No.1, Housing Co-operative Society. The petitioner
claims that he was admitted to membership of respondent No.1-
Society in the year 1983 and on 01.04.1991, lease cum sale deed
was executed in his favour by respondent No.1 - Society in respect
of site No.124, measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft in Sy.No.15 of Bikashipura
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioner also
claims that he was put in possession of the said property on
04.09.1994.
4. Petitioner alleged that site No.217 was allotted to
respondent No.5 on 19.06.2000 and the lease cum sale deed was
executed in favour of respondent No.5 on the same day. It is
further stated that on 30.07.2001, the lease cum sale deed dated
01.04.1991 executed in his favour in respect of site No.124 was
cancelled without his notice and consent. Thereafter, on 13.08.2001,
the rectification deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 by
substituting site No.124 (petitioner's site) in place of site No.217
without notice to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner further alleged that on 13.04.2005, the
Administrator was appointed to respondent No.1 - Society and on
08.03.2006, absolute sale deed was executed in favour of
respondent No.5 in respect of site No.124. The sale deed was
registered on 10.03.2006. On 10.03.2006, respondent No.5 sold
the aforementioned site No.124 in favour of respondent No.6.
6. On 01.08.2008, the petitioner raised a dispute under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959 before the Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Society. In the said proceedings, the respondent No.1 -
Society, its President, Secretary and respondent No.5 - the
member/allottee, and respondent No.6 - person (non-member) in
whose favour sale deed is executed by respondent No. 5 are made
as parties.
7. In addition to the prayer to declare the petitioner as the
owner of the disputed site, the petitioner also sought a declaration
that the rectification deed dated 13.08.2001 and the sale deed
dated 08.03.2006 executed by respondents No.2 and 3 in favour of
respondent No.5 are illegal and nullity in law. The petitioner also
sought a declaration that the sale deed executed by respondent
No.5 in favour of respondent No.6 (non-member) on 10.03.2006 as
illegal and nullity in law. By way of an amendment, petitioner also
prayed for cancellation of the registered cancellation deed executed
on 30.07.2001.
8. The purchaser/non-member took a stand that Registrar
acting under the Act of 1959 has no jurisdiction to entertain the
petition under Section 70 of the Act of 1959.
9. The Joint Registrar held that he has the jurisdiction to
decide the dispute and also concluded that the execution of the sale
deed by the Society in favour of respondent No.5 is bad in law and
also held that the purchaser/respondent No.6 does not acquire any
title in property and consequently, held that the petitioner is the
owner of site No.124.
10. The purchaser filed the appeal before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal. Rest of the parties did not challenge the award.
The Tribunal held that the Registrar under Section 70 of the Act of
1959 does not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the
registered sale deed between a member of the co-operative society
and a non-member. However, the Tribunal opined that act of the
Society unilaterally cancelling the lease cum sale deed in favour of
the petitioner is illegal.
11. Appearing for the petitioner's counsel, the learned
Senior counsel Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil raised the following
contentions:-
a) Section 70 of the Act of 1959 is wide enough to cover all
the disputes between a member and a co-operative
society in connection with the allotment of site by a
Housing Co-operative Society and if such a dispute is
raised, all questions including the validity of registered
sale deed can be looked into by the Registrar under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959.
b) The expression "persons claiming through a member"
appearing in Section 70(1)(b) of the Act of 1959 also
includes all persons, who derived title over the property
from a member and if Section 70 is read along with
Section 117(3)(a) of the Act of 1959, the Registrar does
get the jurisdiction to decide a dispute even against a
non-member if such person has derived the right over
the subject matter through a member of a co -operative
Society.
(c) Section 118 of the Act of 1959 excludes the jurisdiction
of Civil Court in respect of the matters covered therein.
If Section 118 of the Act of 1959 is read along with
Sections 70 and 117 of the Act of 1959, the Registrar
gets jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by a
member(petitioner) for allotting the site to another
member (5th respondent ) by ignoring his seniority, and
subsequent transfer of the property by a member to a
non-member
12. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel
relied upon the following judgments:-
i) Suresh Shah vs. Hipad Technology India Private
Limited [(2021) 1 SCC 529];
ii) Narasegowda vs. HMT Employees House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd., [ILR 1992
KAR 3564];
iii) Vidya Drolia and others vs. Durga Trading
Corporation [(2021) 2 SCC 1];
iv) A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasivam and Others
[(2016) 10 SCC 386];
v) Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd vs. Meena
Vijay Khetan and others. [AIR 1999 SC 2102]
13. The learned Senior counsel Sri. D.L.N. Rao, appearing
for the contesting respondent would raise the following
contentions:-
(a) The relief sought by the petitioner before the Joint
Registrar is beyond the scope of Section 70 of the Act of
1959. The relief sought by the petitioner can be granted
only by a competent Civil Court.
(b) Contesting respondent No.6 is not a "person who is
claiming through a member" provided under Section
70(1)(b) of the Act of 1959.
(c) The contesting respondent No.6 is claiming right on the
basis of the sale deed, which is an independent right and
not a derivative right as contemplated under Section
70(1)(b) of the Act of 1959.
14. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel
for the contesting respondent placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
i) Vinayaka Griha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha
Ltd., vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [ILR
1995 KAR 518];
ii) Smt. Siddamma vs. Bhavani Housing co-
operative Society Limited and others [2016
(2) KCCR 1655]
iii) Sri. K. Raju vs. Bangalore Development
Authority [ILR 2011 KAR 120];
iv) M/s. Panna Stones Pvt. Ltd., vs. Sri.
Rajendrakumar Goyal and another
[W.A.No.608/2009 c/w W.A.No.607/2009].
15. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the
bar. The question that needs to be answered is;
Whether a person who is not a member of a Co-operative
Society and purchases the property from a member of a co-
operative society, can be termed as a "person claiming
through a member" under Section 70(1)(b) of the Act of 1959
and amenable to jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 70
of the Act of 1959?
16. Respondent No.6-non member, purchased the property
from a member-respondent No.5. The petitioner is a member of the
first respondent co-operative Society. Since respondent Society is a
Housing Co-operative Society, allotment of sites to its members is
the business of the said Society. The dispute relating to allotment of
sites among the members of a Society is a dispute touching the
business of the respondent society is governed by Section 70 of the
Act of 1959.
17. In the above said background, the petitioner contends
that the 6th respondent purchased the property, from 5th
respondent is covered under the expression "person claiming
through a member" under Section 70 (1) (b) of the Act of 1959,
and the dispute touches the business of the Co-operative Society.
18. It is urged by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned senior
counsel that the aforementioned judgment is no longer a good law
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidya
Drolia, supra. Emphasis is laid on paragraphs No.70 and 79, of the
said judgment, to urge that all disputes which can be tried by the
Civil Courts, except those falling under the category of judgment in
rem and those which are to be mandated to be decided under the
provisions of a special Statute, can be adjudicated if they fall under
the category of cases covered under Section 70 (1) of the Act of
1959.
19. It is also urged that Section 118 of the Act of 1959,
specifically prohibits the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of
the matters covered under Section 70 of the Act of 1959. Reference
is also made to Section 117 (3) (a) of the Act of 1959 to urge that a
non member can be a party to dispute under Section 70 of the Act
of 1959.
20. The judgment in Vidya Drolia, supra is rendered
interpreting the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 ('Act of 1996'), where the parties by consent subject
themselves to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. In the said case,
the Apex Court has held that if the adjudication does not render a
judgment in rem and adjudication by the Civil Court is not barred
by the special enactment, then such disputes can be arbitrated.
21. Here the question is slightly different. The Act of 1959
itself provides special forum to decide certain disputes. In addition,
the Act of 1959 ousts jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of
such matters where adjudicatory forum is provided in the Act of
1959. Moreover, unlike the Act of 1996, the jurisdiction of the
Registrar is not by consent. The jurisdiction of the Registrar is
governed under the Act of 1959. Thus, jurisdiction of the Registrar
under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 is to be decided with reference
to Section 70 and other provisions of Act of 1959.
22. Section 70 of the Act of 1959 reads as under:
"70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for
decision. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution,
management, or the business of a co-operative society arises.-
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through
members, past members and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a
member, past member or deceased member and the society, its
[board] or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or
(c) between the society or its [board] and any past [board], any
officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past
employee or the nominee, heirs, or legal representatives of any
deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the
society, or
(d) between the society and any other co-operative society, [or a
credit agency]
such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and [no -
Civil or Labour or Revenue Court or Industrial Tribunal] shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of
such dispute.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be
deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or
the business of a co-operative society, namely.-
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a
member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a
deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or
not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the
society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any
debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the
default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is
admitted or not;
[(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of a
President, Vice-President, or any office-bearer or Member of board
of the Society;]
[(d) any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees
or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased
employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment,
working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative
society [notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)];
(e) a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency caused in
the assets of the co-operative society by a member, past member,
deceased member or deceased officer, past agent or deceased
agent or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant or by its
[board], past or present whether such loss be admitted or not.]
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the
Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution,
management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision
thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in
question in any Court."
23. Section 70 (1) of the Act of 1959 is exhaustive on the
following two matters, namely,
(a) Subject matter of dispute
(b) Parties to the dispute.
24. The subject matters which fall under the jurisdiction of
the Registrar are the disputes touching the constitution,
management, or business of a co-operative society and nothing
beyond. Under Section 70 of the Act of 1959, the Registrar can
exercise jurisdiction only if, the "subject matter of the dispute" is
the one touching the constitution, management, or business of a
co-operative society. If the dispute does not come under any one of
the three categories referred to above, Section 70 of the Act of 1959
has no application. The dispute need not touch all three subjects
referred to above; suffice if it touches any one of three subjects
referred to above.
25. Sub clauses (a) to (d) Section 70 (1) of the Act of 1959,
exhaustively mention as to the persons who are subjected to the
jurisdiction of the Registrar in a dispute under Section 70 of the Act
of 1959.
26. Thus, to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Act of
1959, twin tests must be fulfilled namely;
(i) The dispute must be the one touching the constitution,
management, or business of a co-operative society.
(ii) The dispute must be between or among the persons
named in sub clauses (a) to (d) of Section 70 (1) of the Act of 1959.
If any of the above said two criteria is not met, then the
Registrar under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 will not have the
jurisdiction to try the dispute.
27. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Smt Siddamma's case supra has taken a view that the dispute
relating to the transfer of immovable property or validity of
registered sale deed is not contemplated under Section 70 of Act of
1959. The Court has also taken a view that the dispute under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959 is only confined to the disputes named
in Section 70(2) (a) to (e) of the Act of 1959, and once the sale
deed is executed and registered, the purchaser becomes the
absolute owner and neither the Authority under the Act of 1959 nor
the Society will have the power to negate the registered deed,
unless it is cancelled by the competent Civil Court.
28. However, another Co-ordinate Bench in The Executive
Director, KPTC Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. vs Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Another (2013) 04 KAR
CK 0127 has held that the disputes named in Section 70 (2) (a) to
(e) are not exhaustive. This Court is of the view that whether the
disputes mentioned in Section 70 (2) (a) to (e) are exhaustive
need to be gone into in this case, as the petitioner does not cross
the hurdle in Section 70 (1) of the Act of 1959.
29. As already noticed, respondent No.5 - the member of
respondent No. 1 society sold the property to respondent No. 6 - the
non-member. This sale transaction between respondents No.5 and 6
cannot be termed as a transaction touching the business of a
Co-operative Society as the society has no role to play in the said
sale transaction. Though, the respondent society is a Housing
Co-operative Society, and the sale transaction between respondent
No.1 Co-operative Society and its member namely 5th respondent is
the business of the respondent Society, the further sale by 5th
respondent member to 6th respondent who is not a member of the
Society, is not a business of the Society.
30. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that the
6th respondent though not a member of the first respondent co-
operative society, since he purchased the property from a member
of 1st respondent society, he is covered under the expression
"person claiming through a member".
31. It is relevant to note that the expression "person
claiming through a member, past member or deceased member"
appearing in Section 70 (1) (b) of the Act of 1959, also signifies that
first part of the expression extracted above, i.e., "person claiming
through a member" is not the legal representative of a deceased
member. This is apparent because of the use of the expression
"deceased member". It is also relevant to note that the legislature
has not the expression "from a member" and used the expression
"through a member" And there is a subtle difference between the
words "through" and "from". Respondent No. 6 is a purchaser
from respondent No.5 and not a purchaser through respondent
No.5. The sale transaction between 5th and 6th respondent cannot
be termed as termed as sale through 5th respondent. In fact it is a
sale from 5th respondent. And there is no involvement of the first
respondent co-operative society. Thus, 6th respondent - non-
member who purchased the property from 5th respondent -
member, without involvement of the society cannot be termed as
"person claiming through a member". As already noticed to attract
Section 70 of the Act of 1959, twin tests referred to above must be
satisfied. In the instant case, the sale transaction between 5th and
6th respondent is neither the one touching the constitution,
management or business of the co-operative society nor coming
under the expression "claiming through a member". Here on both
counts, section 70 of the Act of 1959 is not attracted.
32. Referring to Section 117 (3) (a) of the Act of 1959, and
taking shelter under the expression 'person claiming through a
member' appearing in Section 70 (1) (b), it is urged that the person
who is not a member of a co-operative society can also be made a
party to the proceeding under Section 70 of the Act of 1959
provided that such non-member is claiming through a member. This
Court is unable to accept the contention.
33. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to sub-section
(3) (a) of Section 117 of the Act of 1959.
Section 117. xxxxxx
(3) (a) If the Registrar or any other person to whom
a dispute is referred is satisfied that a person, whether
he be a member of the Co-operative Society or not,
has acquired any interest in the property of a person
who is a party to a dispute, he may order that the
person who has acquired the interest in the property
may join as a party to the dispute; and any decision
that may be passed on the reference by the Registrar
or his nominee or any other person shall be binding on
the party so joined, in the same manner as if he were
an original party to the dispute.
(emphasis supplied)
34. Section 117(3)(a) of the Act of 1959 enables the
Registrar to implead any person who has acquired an interest in the
property of a person who is a party to a dispute, whether such
person is a member or not. This provision has a limited application.
The expression "has acquired any interest in the property of a
person who is a party to a dispute" has to be understood as a
person who has acquired the interest in the property during the
pendency of the dispute, and not before the dispute. If not, sub-
clauses (a) to (d) of Section 70(1) of the Act of 1959 become
redundant. The logic behind incorporating Section 117 (3) (a) of the
Act of 1959 is to ensure that the act of transfer of the property in
dispute, to a non member 'during the pendency of a dispute' under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959, does not take away the jurisdiction of
the Registrar, if he is adjudicating a dispute which is otherwise to be
tried under Section 70 of the Act of 1959.
35. This being the position, the Registrar acting under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959 could not have entertained a dispute
raised by the petitioner where one of the defendants in the
proceeding is a non-member of respondent co-operative society who
purchased the property from a member. Accordingly, the award
passed by the 7th respondent - Joint Registrar is one without
jurisdiction.
36. The Court has also perused the judgments in Suresh
Shah, A.Ayyasamy and Olympus Superstructures Private
Limited supra. Since, the jurisdiction of the Registrar under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959 is not decided in the aforementioned
judgments and as the expression "claiming through a member" is
required to be interpreted having regard to the expression
"constitution, management or business of a co-operative society"
appearing in Section 70(1) of the Act of 1959, the ratio laid down in
the aforementioned judgments are not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
37. It is also relevant to note that the Tribunal has given a
finding that the act of the respondent-Society cancelling the lease
cum sale deed is illegal. At the same time, the Tribunal has held
that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. This
being the position, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal could
not have partially upheld the finding of the Registrar who had no
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Though, there is no challenge
to the said finding by the respondent-purchaser, same is set-aside
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India as the Tribunal could not have upheld the finding of the
Registrar on the legality of the act of respondent-Society in
cancelling the lease cum sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
However, it is made abundantly clear that this judgment should not
be construed as a finding on the merits of the claim of either of the
parties other than the issue relating to the jurisdiction. All questions
other than the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, to try the suit is
instituted by the petitioner are kept open.
38. Since the dispute raised by the petitioner was fought in
a forum which had no jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that
liberty should be reserved to the petitioner to raise a dispute in a
competent Civil Court. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to institute a suit in a competent Civil Court. If such a
dispute is raised, the time spent in prosecuting the petition under
Section 70 of the Act of 1959 till this date is to be excluded in
computing the limitation to file the suit.
39. If such a suit is filed, same shall be decided on merits,
without being influenced by the order of dismissal of this writ
petition.
40. It is also noticed from the order sheet that the
contesting respondent No.6 has put up a construction in the
disputed property by giving an undertaking that he shall not claim
any equity in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the writ
petition.
41. Since, the claim of the petitioner is not decided on
merits and the writ petition is dismissed on the premise that the
Registrar under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 had no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition, the 6th respondent is also precluded from
claiming any equity, on the premise that he has constructed a
building in the disputed property during the pendency of the writ
petition, in case the petitioner succeeds in the suit if filed by the
petitioner.
42. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a civil suit
before the competent Civil Court.
(iii) If such suit is filed, the time spent in prosecuting the
petition before the 7th respondent - Joint Registrar
till this date has to be excluded in computing the
period of limitation to file the suit.
(iv) If such suit is filed, same shall be decided on its
merits without being influenced by the order of the
dismissal of the writ petition.
(v) In case, the petitioner succeeds in the suit, the 6th
respondent shall not claim equity on the premise
that he has constructed a building in the disputed
property.
(vi) In case the suit is filed, the Civil Court shall decide
the validity of the deed cancelling the lease cum sale
deed executed in favour of the petitioner without
being influenced by any of the observations made in
the award and the impugned order.
(vi) Respondent No.6 is restrained from creating any
third party charges/rights over the disputed property
for three months from today or till filing of the suit,
whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BRN/CHS
