Rajasthan High Court
Roop Narayan vs Raj State Cooperative Tribunal ... on 6 March, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:11692]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1592/1998
Roop Narayan (Since Deceased) through Lrs:-
1.Manbhari Devi wife of Late Shri Roop Narain, aged about 65
years,
2.Rajendra Kumar (Since Deceased) through Lrs:-
2/1.Smt. Renu Verma wife of Late Shri Rajendra Kumar, aged
about 39 years,
2/2.Kumari Yamini Verma D/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar, aged
about 17 years, Minor
2/3.Deepanshu Verma son of Late Shri Rajendra Kumar, aged
about 13 years, Minor
Minors are through natural guardian and mother Smt. Renu
Verma.
3.Ramesh Verma son of Shri Roop Narayan, aged about 45
years,
4.Shrawan Verma son of Shri Roop Narayan aged about 40
years,
5.Jitendra Verma son of Shri Roop Narayan, aged about 37
years,
All are residents of Plot No,.11 and 12, Purohitji Ka Bag,
Gopinath Marg, Jaipur.
6.Neetu Kumawat D/o Late Shri Roop Narayan Wife of Shri
Navratan, Aged about 35 years, Resident of Near Netaji Ki
Chakki, Neendar Ravji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bajar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1.Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur.
2.Arbitrator Shri Susheel Kumar Jain, Inspector (Karaya) Office
of Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur city, Jaipur.
4.Smt. Dhapa Bai wife of Shri Magan lal, Resident of Purohit Ji
Ka Bag, M.I. Road, Jaipur.
5.Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., F-50, Kalidas Marg,
Bani park, Jaipur through its President Shri Jagan Singh son of
Shri Gulab Singh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.L. Mathur with
Mr. Amit Kumar Dhawan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Rajat Ranjan
Mr. Aman Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
(D.B. SAW/500/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2024:RJ-JP:11692] (2 of 7) [CW-1592/1998]
06/03/2024
This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment
dated 06.05.1997 passed by the Rajasthan State Cooperative
Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity "the learned Tribunal") in Appeal
No.26/94 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by late
Shri Roop Narayan-predecessor-in-interest of the present
petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant No.2"), the
award dated 31.03.1993 passed by the Arbitrator and Sub-
Registrar, Cooperative Societies (for short "the Arbitrator")
decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.4/plaintiff (for
brevity "the plaintiff") under Section 75 of the Rajasthan
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act of 1965"), has been affirmed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit
against the respondent no.5/defendant No.1 (for brevity, "the
defendant No.1") and defendant No.2 stating therein that she was
allotted the subject plots bearing No.11 and 12 admeasuring
216.86 square yards, Scheme No.8, Purohit Ji Ka Bag, Jaipur by
the respondent no.5 in October, 1975 and November, 1975
respectively. It was averred that after obtaining their possession,
she raised construction thereon which was let out to Shri
Prabhudayal Pareek who unauthorisedly sublet it to the defendant
No.2. It was alleged that now, the defendant No.2 is claiming
himself to be owner of the aforesaid plots on the strength of some
forged Pattas allegedly issued by the defendant No.1 in his favour.
It was, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff be declared the owner
of the subject plots and necessary legal action be taken against
the defendant No.2 for preparing the forged Pattas.
(D.B. SAW/500/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2024:RJ-JP:11692] (3 of 7) [CW-1592/1998]
The defendant No.1 in its written statement admitted that
the subject plots were alloted to the plaintiff and the defendant
No.2 was never issued any allotment letter(s)/site plan. It was
submitted that the defendant No.2 has forged the Pattas of the
aforesaid plots.
The defendant No.2 in his written statement stated that he
was issued allotment letters of the subject plots on 31.03.1976 on
deposition of their cost vide receipt dated 499 dated 16.01.1976.
The plaintiff in her rejoinder to the written statement filed by
the defendant No.2 denied the averments made therein.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Arbitrator
framed four issues. After hearing the learned counsel for the
plaintiff as none appeared for the defendants No.1 and 2, the
Arbitrator, vide award dated 31.03.1993, decreed the suit filed by
the plaintiff deciding all the issues in her favour. The appeal
preferred thereagainst by the defendant No.2 has been dismissed
by the learned Tribunal vide judgement dated 06.05.1997.
Assailing the judgement dated 06.05.1997, learned counsel
for the petitioners made following submissions:-
(1) Inviting attention of this Court towards the averments made
by the plaintiff in para no.2 of her plaint, he submits that therein,
she has stated that she deposited the cost of the plot no.12 vide
receipt No.448 dated 26.11.1985 whereas, he was already allotted
the subject plot on 16.01.1976. He submits that while decreeing
the suit and dismissing the appeal, it has been held that allotment
of the plots in favour of the plaintiff has been made prior in time
than the defendant No.2, a finding which is, therefore, perverse.
(D.B. SAW/500/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2024:RJ-JP:11692] (4 of 7) [CW-1592/1998]
(2) Drawing attention of this Court towards the ground 'H' in the
memo of the writ petition, learned counsel submits that despite
transfer of the respondent No.2, i.e., the Arbitrator, he wrote the
complete proceeding of different dates in a single day using unfair
means which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
(3) The Arbitrator was required to deliver the award within a
specified period and on his failure to do so, it is rendered non est.
(4) Lastly, that since, his possession over the subject plots was
admitted by the plaintiff, there was no occasion for the learned
Tribunal to have dismissed his appeal.
He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the
judgment dated 06.05.1997 be quashed and set aside and the suit
filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff submits
that the averment made in the plaint with regard to the date of
receipt No.448 being 26.11.1985 suffers from the vice of
typographical error inasmuch as its correct date is 26.11.1975 as
has been held by the Arbitrator as also by the learned Tribunal. He
submits that there are concurrent findings of facts by the two
forums that the defendant No.1 has allotted the subject plots to
her who is in possession of the same and the documents
submitted by the defendant No.2 to establish his title over the
subject property were dubious and did not inspire confidence as to
their genuineness. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it
was held that once the subject plots were allotted to the plaintiff,
the same could not have been allotted by the defendant No.1 to
the defendant No.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
(D.B. SAW/500/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2024:RJ-JP:11692] (5 of 7) [CW-1592/1998]
this Court, in its writ jurisdiction, does not sit as an appellate
authority over the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and
would not like to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts in
absence of any perversity or manifest error of law/facts therein.
He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard. Considered.
The Arbitrator has, after appreciating the oral as well as the
documentary evidence on record, decided all the four issues in
favour of the plaintiff. It was held that on physical inspection of
the site by him, the plaintiff was found in possession of the
subject plots raising construction thereupon and the defendant
No.2 could not explain as to how the plaintiff was in possession of
the subject property. It was further held that although, the
defendant No.2 was found in possession of a very small portion of
the subject property which the plaintiff claimed to be as
unauthorised sub-tenant of the tenant-Prabhudayal Pareek; but,
the defendant No.2 could not satisfy the authority under which he
was occupying the same. While deciding the issue no.2, it was
held that the plaintiff has been able to establish from production
of the documentary evidence that she was allotted the subject
plots by the defendant No.1 whereas, the defendant No.2 could
not establish that the same were allotted to him. The Arbitrator
appreciated that the President of the defendant No.1-Shri Jagan
Singh has denied specifically that the defendant No.2 was ever
issued any receipt/Patta of the subject plots. The learned Tribunal
has, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the
appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendant No.2.
(D.B. SAW/500/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2024:RJ-JP:11692] (6 of 7) [CW-1592/1998]
This Court is in respectful agreement with the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff that this Court in its
writ jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate authority over the
judgment dated 06.05.1997 of the learned Tribunal and should not
interfere in routine. Since, the concurrent findings of facts based
on appreciation of material on record have not been demonstrated
by the learned counsel for the petitioners to be suffering from any
perversity, illegality or manifest error of law/facts, no interference
of this Court is warranted.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant No.2
are misconceived and do not merit acceptance. The material on
record reflects that as a matter of fact, the plaintiff was issued
receipt No.448 on 26.11.1975 and on account of a typographical
error, its date came to be mentioned in the plaint as 26.11.1985.
His submission based on the averments made in Ground 'H'
of the memo of the writ petition are in the realm of
unsubstantiated allegations. Despite asking of this Court, the
learned counsel for the defendant No.2 could not satisfy that the
respondent no.2 was transferred during pendency of the arbitral
proceedings or, he wrote the complete proceedings of different
dates in a single day using unfair means. Even the judgment
dated 06.05.1997 does not reflect that any such objection was
taken by the defendant No.2 in the appeal. In these
circumstances, it appears to be an illusionary afterthought.
The third submission of the learned counsel for the
defendant No.2 that on failure by the Arbitrator to deliver the
award within the stipulated period, it is rendered null and void,
has no legs to stand. Despite request, the learned counsel could
(D.B. SAW/500/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2024:RJ-JP:11692] (7 of 7) [CW-1592/1998]
not point out any such statutory provision either under the Act of
1965 or otherwise which mandates an arbitrator to deliver the
award within a specified period with penal consequence on failure.
With regard to the last submission qua his possession over
the subject property, it has already been held that the defendant
No.2 was not found to be in possession of the subject property
except a small portion for which also, he could not satisfy under
which authority he has been occupying the same.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the writ
petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/1
(D.B. SAW/500/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
