NEHA CHOWDA, W/O RAJESH CHAWDA Vs. COLLEGE WARD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT - SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The College Ward Co-operative Housing Society - respondent No.1 herein, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act of 1960'), allotted plot No.608, area 2400 sq.ft., to respondent Smt. Shashi Upadhyay and executed a registered sale deed in her favour on 21-10-1986. She could not commence and complete the construction, as required in the bye-laws of the society, within the stipulated time leading to raising of co-operative dispute under Sec. 64(2)(v) of the Act of 1960 by respondent No.2, as on account of non-construction within the stipulated time, her allotment was cancelled by respondent No.1 Society and it was reallotted to one Narayan Das Rathi on 22-10-1991, but later-on he surrendered the said allotment and accordingly, it was again allotted to petitioner No.1 herein and the respondent No.1 Society by registered sale deed dated 16-10-1998 executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 herein.

(2.) In the pending dispute filed by respondent No.2 Shashi Upadhyay, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by its order dated 31- 3-2004 held that the cancellation of allotment made in favour of respondent No.2 Shashi Upadhyay is in accordance with law and she is only entitled for refund of sale consideration feeling aggrieved against which she preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by its order dated 20-9-2004 allowed the appeal and held that respondent No.2 Shashi Upadhyay has right over the disputed subject land plot No.608 and the present petitioner No.1 Neha Chawda is entitled for entire amount along with interest.

(3.) Questioning legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, this writ petition has been preferred in which the respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit opposing the same.