BHARAT GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that respondent No. 2 to 5 were allotted different plots by the petitioner- Society as they wanted to raise certain constructions or build houses. According to the petitioner-Society, as the respondents No. 2 to 5 were not raising constructions in accordance with the by-laws of the Society, repeated notices were issued to them and ultimately their allotments were cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said cancellation, each of the respondent (No. 2 to 5) filed a dispute under Section 64 of MR Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar. It appears that immediately after cancellation of the allotment, one plot each was allotted to respondent No. 7 to 9. The present petitioner and the fresh allottees were made parties in the disputes, who after notice filed their replies. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Deputy Registrar held that the cancellation of the allotment was illegal and could not be sustained. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Co-operative Society filed four appeals and each of the allottee also filed separate appeals. All the eight appeals were heard in a group hearing . The learned Joint Registrar set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and held that the society was justified in canceling the allotments or making fresh allotments. The matter was then taken to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by its judgment date 11.9.1998, reversed the judgment passed by the Joint Registrar restored that of the Deputy Registrar and held that cancellation of the allotment was illegal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Society has filed this petition.

(2.) Submission of Shri Sapre, learned Counsel for petitioner-Society is that the Board of Revenue was not justified in up setting the findings rather well reasoned findings recorded by the joint Registrar and erred in stepping outside the jurisdiction conferred upon it under sub-section (2) of Section 77 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. His further submission is that the order dated 11.9.1998 does not show application of mind and clearly proceeds on certain presumptions which were not available to the said authority. I have heard Shri Sapre at length.

(3.) Sub-section (2) of Section 77 refers to a second appeal. According to sub-section (2), a second appeal shall lie against any order passed in first appeal on the grounds well described under sub-section (2) of Section 77 and no other. The grounds on which a second appeal can be filed have been categorised as :