POOVALI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that he is the elected President of the Poovalai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. He assumed Office on 15.05.2013. The petitioner submits that after assuming office, he received a communication dated 03.05.2013 from the first respondent. The first respondent therein directed the administrator to re-convey the property belonging to the society S.No.2, in Puduchatram, a hamlet in Alamelumangapuram Village, to one Chandramohan, son of Venkatakrishnan. He gathered from the communication that Venkatakrishnan, since deceased, borrowed a sum of Rs.26,470.50/- on 27.01.1973 on the security of his land above mentioned. Venkatakrishnan created an equitable mortgage of his properties measuring 9.89 acres. He died on 03.05.1977 during the subsistence of the mortgage. He further submits that the Society had filed an ARC for recovery of the sum borrowed and obtained the award in its favour. Then, it seems that the Society filed an EP and brought the property of Venkatakrishnan for auction. Since there were no bidders the property was purchased by the Society as a set off for the E.P. amount. Consequent to the purchase, the society took possession of the property as per Law, mutation of records has been effected and the society is in possession and enjoyment of the property for the past 41 years. The society is paying the kist to the Government and has leased out the land to a self help group.

(2.) The petitioner further submits that in the impugned order, the first respondent has directed the administrator to re-convey the property to the son of the above said Venkatakrishnan. The order of the re-conveyance is made under Rule 131 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 41 years after the purchase by the society. From the impugned order, he gathered that Chandramohan filed petition under Rule 131 before the then Administrator of the Society for re-conveyance of the property. The impugned order further states that the administrator of the society passed a resolution No.1, dated 28.06.2011 for re-conveyance and forwarded it to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chidambaram. The petitioner further submits that no records are available with the Society to confirm and verify the statement made in the order cited above. The present Secretary of the Society does not co-operate and will not oblige him by producing the file. The order dated 03.05.2013 does not mention the ARC No, the date of award, the copy of the award, details of execution petition, the date of auction, the amount for which the auction was confirmed, the date of conveyance etc. The order is bereft of facts and states only the amount borrowed and the expenses incurred by the Society and the interest. The total amount given in the order is Rs.2,42,500.50/-. This figure is at variance with the earlier stated figure in the body of the order viz., Rs.2,20,000/-. This amount of Rs.2,20,000/- is alleged to have been deposited by Chandramohan to the Society. The date of deposit was not mentioned. The date of application by Chandramohan before the administrator and the application itself are not available with the Society. If it is available, it ought to have found a place in the order. The first respondent herself states that the above said facts were informed by the Secretary and the then Administrator of the Society. Mystery surrounds the entire event and the genuineness of the proceedings is itself under suspect.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that in the same order at a later stage, the first respondent states that she went through the prayer in the petition and the documents available in the Society. The first respondent contradicts herself at every stage in the order. The first respondent states that power is vested in her for re-conveyance in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and she is ordering the same on the recommendation made by the then Administrator and the Deputy Registrar, Chidambaram. No independent investigation and application of mind is evident from the order. The petitioner further submits that a property purchased by the Society in the year 1973 is ordered to be re-conveyed by the first respondent after receiving the sale price then paid with an interest at a flat rate of 18%. The Society has been in possession of the property for more than 41 years. Under the Indian Limitation Act, if no period of limitation is fixed in the Act, Article 137 will apply and the limitation period is 3 years. The order passed by the first respondent is against law. Further, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai issued Circular No.1/87, dated 09.01.1987 limiting the period for re-conveyance to 6 months from the date of sale. The first respondent is bound by the circular and cannot disregard the circular and pass an order of re-conveyance against the direction given in the circular. The re-conveyance order by the first respondent is against the rule of perpetuity also. The petitioner further submits that the property is worth more than Rs.60 lakhs in the open market. A factory is coming adjacent to the property. Property values have escalated multi fold in the recent times. The Society cannot be deprived of the gain it will make by selling it in the open market. The petitioner further submits that a petition dated 06.11.2013 has been sent to the Chief Minister's Cell, Chennai, The Chief Secretary, Chennai, District Collector, Cuddaore, Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore etc. His petitions has angered the first respondent and she, through the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chidambaram, had it ordered for inspection under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. One Madavi CSR was appointed as Inspection Officer. She issued summons dated 03.02.2014 to the petitioner, directing him to appear before her on 07.02.2014. On that day, the petitioner was made to give a statement without the help of the records. Later, the petitioner understands that his statement was recorded by Madavi after she has submitted her report on 25.12.2013. The inspection report dated 25.12.2013 is not a only report submitted by Madavi. It could be seen from the records that another report dated 25.02.2014 was also submitted by her. The copies of the two reports are not served on him.