BABRUVAHAN VENKATRAO JADHAV Vs. HARISCHANDRA RANGRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE involves a short but important question as to whether, a dispute between the liquidator of the society and the members of the same society covers a dispute as contemplated under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act ).

(2.) THE respondents filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant No. 1 for declaration and possession. The circumstances in which the suit came to be filed relates back to the bundle of facts but the facts which are relevant for our purpose are these : there is a Co-operative Housing Society, known as Yeshwant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , Latur. The society has been duly registered on July 21, 1966 under the Act. The prominent object of the society is to provide housing accommodation to its members and to construct houses and allot them to its members or help the individual members to construct individual houses. On account of some dispute between the members of the said society, liquidator came to be appointed. The original petitioner was appointed as liquidator. The respondent No. 7 is the present liquidator.

(3.) IT appears that the society acquired a vast land in Survey No. 208-A of Latur admeasuring East-West 205 feet and South-North 550 feet. The respondent No. 10, who acted as the then Chairman of the said society, except purchasing of the said piece of land took no further steps with a view to convert the said piece of land into pieces for allotting the same to members of the society. On september 15, 1973, he has, however, conveyed General Body Meeting of the members. In the meeting it was resolved to convert the agricultural land for non-agricultural use and to make a lay out thereof. In pursuance of the resolution, the Chairman of the society laid out 22 plots and obtained permission for non-agricultural use. Under the lay out plan open space admeasuring 145 x 80 in the middle was left open for the purpose of using it as a green belt for common good and advantage of all memebrs of the society. It appears that after sanction of lay out plan, the real dispute has started and it is at that stage the liquidator came to be appointed. It appears that the petitioner distributed the plots amongst all qualified members of the society, but thereafter, the respondent No. 4 in collusion with the petitioner is said to have managed his name as a member and converted the open space meant for green belt in to four plots by correcting suitably the record of the society. That action of the petitioner and his supporters was challenged by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in a suit filed by them being Regular Civil Suit No. 1884 of 1984.