THAKUR DASS Vs. CHAGAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Bankey Bihari Refugees Co-operative Housing Society allotted plot No. 62 admeasuring 2200 sq. feet to peti tioner Thakur Dass for Rs. 300/- as a transfer certificate was issued on the 18th April, 1961. Adjoining this plot was an open space admeasur ing 440 sq. feet. As this open space was regarded as useless, it was allotted to Thakur Dass at his request on payment of additional price of Rs. 60. On the 27th July 1962, a fresh transfer certificate was issued showing that the open space of 440 sq. feet was also included in plot No. 62 which was described therein as ad measuring 2640 sq. feet. On the 23rd Sep tember, 1963, the Society informed Thakur Dass that the Managing Committee of the Society had cancelled the allotment of the open space of 440 sq. feet and the addi tional price paid by Thakur Dass would be refunded to him. That open space was on the same day allotted to Chhagan Lal, opposite party No. 1, who immediately started construct ing a house thereon. Aggrieved, the peti tioner made a representation to the Managing Committee which failed. Then on the 7th October, 1963, he requested for arbitra tion under Rule 115 of the Co-operative Societies Rules made under the Co-opera tive Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter refer red to as "the Act of 1912"). The Arbitrator made an award on the 3rd April, 1965, that the cancellation of the allotment of the open space to the petitioner without notice and without his consent and the subsequent al lotment thereof to Chhagan Lal were bad and directed that the open space be restored to Thakur Dass after removing the construc tions and that Thakur Dass be also paid Rs. 250/- by way of compensation. The award of the Arbitrator was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Registrar on the 1st April, 1968. (It appears that the Society also had filed an appeal which was later withdrawn on the ground that it was un authorised and a fresh appeal was filed long after the period of limitation. The Assis tant Registrar has not formally passed any order in that appeal. We are not, however concerned with this aspect of the case in this petition). Chhagan Lal preferred a second appeal to the Registrar and it was heard by the Deputy Registrar who allow ed the appeal and set aside the award of the Arbitrator. This order of the Deputy Regis trar is impugned by Thakur Dass in this petition.

(2.) TWO grounds were urged on behalf of Thakur Dass by his learned counsel. The first ground was that no second appeal lay and the order of the De puty Registrar was, therefore, without juris diction; the second ground was that the order of cancellation of the allotment of the open space in favour of Thakur Dass was il legal as no opportunity was given to Thakur Dass to show cause against the cancellation and the principles of natural justice were violated.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the peti tioner contended that as a result of the re peal of the Act of 1912 and consequently of the Rules made thereunder and in view of the provisions of Section 132 (1) of the Act of 1965, the right of a further appeal to the Registrar against the order made by the Assistant Registrar in appeal conferred by Rule 133-A of the Co-ot)erative Societies Rules under the Act of 1912 does not sur vive in the absence of a provision for a similar appeal in the Act of 1965.