PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with this writ petition. By this award, it was held that the 48 persons named therein "are members of the Budhlada Scheduled Caste Land Owning Society Ltd. as per Bye-laws and provisions of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act, 1961" (hereinafter referred to as the Society) Aggrieved by this order, to petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar, Co operative Societies by this order dated May 13, 1991. Their revision having met the same fate, they have approached this court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) ON January 19, 19s7, the Registrar, Co operative Societies registered the society. It consisted of 12 members. In view of this registration and enrollment of. members, an application for transfer of Nazaol land was made to the District Collector, Bhatinda on December 9, 1957 A copy of this application has been produced on record as Annexure P. 1. Vide order dated February 22, 1972, the Collector, Bhatinda allotted land measuring 174 kanals 12 marlas to the Society on payment of a total amount of Rs. 3,212. 20 N P. The petitioners aver that after the registration of the Society, 48 members were enrolled by the Administrator. This enrollment of new members was "never approved by the general body of the society. . . . . ". It has been further averred that the Administrator cannot enroll the members of the Society. On this basis, it has been averred that "the admission of 48 members of the Co-operative Society by the Administrator without the resolution of the general body is illegal, null and void and is liable to be ignored". This matter was referred to the Arbitrator at the instance of some of the respondents and vide order dated November 19, 1990, the Arbitrator "allowed the admission of 48 members. . . . . . . " According to the petitioner this was done without impleading the Society to the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioners was rejected by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated May 13, 1991, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P-4. The revisional authority upheld this order. A copy of the order dated October 31, 1991 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jullundur Division has been produced on record as Annexure P-5. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent No. 2) passed an order suspending the managing committee of the Society under Section 27 (2) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). A copy of this order has been produced on record as Annexure P-6. The petitioners have impugned the award given by the Arbitrator and the orders passed in appeal and revision. They have also challenged the order of suspension passed by respondent No. 2. These orders have been challenged on various grounds.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 9 and 12 to 14 through respondent No. 4. Various preliminaries objections have been raised. It has been averred that the petitioners have concealed vital facts. It has been further stated that the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the membership of the respondents after the lapse of 35 years It has been further averred that a Division Bench of this Court has held in Bhag Singh v. Ranjodh Singh, 1976 P. L. J. 377, that the Administrator is competent to enroll members. It has also been stated that "the respondents are enjoying the rights of membership since 1957. All the 60 members have been electing their executive body continuously since 1957. Audit Book, Inspection Re register etc. show 60 members. 60 members are giving the land on ch kota since 1957. These respondents have been taking part in the proceedings election on and had been elected several times for President/vice President into management committee At the time when the respondents become members of the Society, they fulfilled all the necessary qualifications- The petitioners never made any objection. All the 60 members are in possession of land of the Society " In support of the claim reliance has also been on an order dated April 16, 1991 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Budhlada in which it has been inter alia observed that "after perusing the record, I am of the view that both the partners are in possession of disputed land. Toe 60 members were in possession when suit under Section 145 was started and now I order under Section 145 (4) Cr PC. that all the 60 members be considered in possession of the land and they should not be thrown out of possession by way of any force under Section 145 for Cr P. C. until any civil court ordered for the same," It has also been averred that the respondents were enrolled as members in accordance with the bye-laws and that they have deposited the entry fee as also their share money. They also claim to have signed/thumb marked the register of members. It is also averred that "all the 60 members made payment for transfer of the land Taking part of members shows that they were members of the society. " On merits, the factual position as noticed above has been reiterated and the claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted. On this basis it has been claimed that the writ petition is wholly lacking in merit and deserves to be dismissed