ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR BHOJNAGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The intra-Court appeal has been preferred assailing the legality of the order dated 27.7.2010 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11955 of 2008 thereby allowing the writ petition quashing the order passed by the State Government

(2.) it is not in dispute that a Liquidator was appointed in order to liquidate Jawahar Puri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti This fact is also not in dispute that Rajesh Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Smt. Saroj Devi were granted patta by the said Society which came under liquidation. The fact is also not in dispute that the Liquidator has cancelled the patta which was granted by the Society in favour of Rajesh Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Smt. Saroj Devi on the strength of an agreement dated 28.6.1995 which is allged to be forged by Rajesh Kumar and Smt. Saroj. On the strength of the said agreement, Liquidator had cancelled the patta granted in favour of Rajesh Kumar and Smt. Saroj and ordered allotment of certain plots in favour of Abdul Rehman Qureshi, the Appellant. The Registrar of the Cooperative Societies ordered an inquiry in the matter. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies filed report on 13.4.2007 in which it was found that the Liquidator had no jurisdiction to cancel the Pata in favour of Rajesh Kumar and Smt. Saroj and to order allotment in favour of the Appellant. Besides this it was also found that the agreement set up by the Appellant was forged. After receipt of the report by the Registrar, a representation was submitted by the Appellant Abdul Rehman Qureshi contending that the inquiry could not have been ordered into the matter. The Registrar ultimately passed an order on 1.9.2007 holding that the Liquidator had no right to transfer the patta in favour of Abdul Rehman Qureshi, the Appellant, and to cancel the patta in favour of Rajesh Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Smt. Saroj Devi. It was also found by the Registrar that transfer of patta was obtained by Abdul Rehman Qureshi on the basis of forged agreement. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Department complied with the order on 7.2.2008 and cancelled the patta granted by the Liquidator in favour of Abdul Rehman Qureshi. Against the order of Registrar, Abdul Rehman Qureshi preferred revision before the State Government. The revision was decided vide order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Minister, Cooperative Department. The Minister set aside the order of the Registrar on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to Abdul Rehman Qureshi. It was not appropriate to direct inquiry under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. Aggrieved by the order of the Minister, Rajesh Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Smt. Saroj Devi and Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. preferred writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11955/2008. The same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 27.7.2010. The Single Bench has held hat the inquiry could have been ordered within the ken of Section 55 of the Act of 2001 by the Registrar. It was not necessary to have recourse to the provisions of Section 58 of the ct of 2001. The order passed by the State Government was quashed by the Single Bench. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2010, the intra-Court appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Shri Ajeet Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that it was necessary to afford opportunity of hearing to the Appellant before holding the agreement to be forged by the Registrar, the opportunity granted during the course of inquiry conducted by the Joint Registrar could not have been substitute for it. He has further submitted that the Liquidator had the power to revise the allotment on the strength of the agreement which was executed in favour of the Appellant Abdul Rehman Qureshi to that he has relied upon Section 64(1) of the Act of 2001. He has submitted that there is vesting of the property in the Liquidator and consequently, he could have exercised aforesaid power on the strength of Section 64(1) though such power not specifically conferred under Section 64(2) of the Act. Counsel has further submitted that as per Rule 75(6) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003, it was necessary to grant opportunity of hearing before acting upon the findings of the inquiry officer by the Registrar, which was not afforded. Consequently, the order was rightly set aside by the State Government. The Single Bench has erred in setting aside the order passed by the State Government.