C ANANTHARAMAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the second respondent, i.e., Regional Deputy Registrar (Housing), dated 18.10.2007 and confirmed by the order of the first respondent, dated 31.1.2008.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 28.2.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted after observing that the petitioner was in possession and though the sale certificate was issued as early as 1993, it was sought to be cancelled only in the year 2007. Further, it was recorded that the petitioner will not part with his title and interest in the property pending disposal of the writ petition. THE interim stay granted for four weeks was extended until further orders by a further order dated 19.12.2008.

(3.) IT was stated that initially, the house was occupied by the writ petitioner as a tenant. Taking advantage of the occupation, the petitioner had attempted to get the confirmation certificate by way of filing O.P.No.4/1992 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum without making the fifth respondent as a party. The District Forum had issued a direction to the society to grant the sale certificate in favour of the writ petitioner. The fifth respondent had preferred an appeal before the State Commission being A.P.No.97 of 1993. IT was held that the auction was not held in terms of the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. IT had directed the respondents to re-pay the installments with interest and that the initial amount of Rs.5000/- was to be forfeited to the Government. The writ petitioner had preferred a revision before the National Commission being Revision Petition No.459 of 1993. The National Commission also confirmed the order of the State Commission. The petitioner being in possession of the property as a tenant, filed a civil suit in O.S.No.749 of 1993 and O.S.No.1441 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. Both suits were dismissed for default. IT is under these circumstances after sending legal notice dated 9.3.2007 for recovery of possession, he had made a complaint to the Deputy Registrar on 18.10.2007. The Deputy Registrar by the impugned proceedings had rejected the request of the writ petitioner and ordered for re-sale of the property. The petitioner had preferred a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent also dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar.