ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. MADHUSHUDAN MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 23rd January, 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6052 of 2012, whereby, the petition preferred by respondent no. 1 has been allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant was already respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, neither notice was ever issued to him nor an opportunity of being heard was given to this appellant and serious prejudice has been caused by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the W.P. (C) No. 6052 of 2012. The learned Single Judge, without giving any opportunity of being heard to this appellant, passed an order that till the decision is taken by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, on the question of allotment of the plot in question, the proceedings pending before the Vice Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority shall be kept in abeyance. Learned counsel for the appellant has given a detailed history of the dispute between the parties and various matters filed one after another about demolition and sanction of the plan of the house upon the plot, in question. Plan initially approved, thereafter, sanction was cancelled and, thereafter, appeals were preferred and writ petition was preferred and the whole history of litigation between the parties have been given in detail and ultimately it is submitted that there are two types of matters involved in the dispute between the parties:

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 vehemently submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in giving direction to the effect that unless and until the matter is decided by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, about allotment of the plot in question, the decision of the Vice Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority should be kept in abeyance because once the matter is decided by the Registrar, Cooperative Society that subsequent allotment made in favour of the present appellant, without cancelling allotment of the plot in question in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner of the writ petition), it will be much easier for the Vice Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority to decide the issues about the demolition of the property and sanction of the map. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (original petitioner of the writ petition) that in Title Suit No. 57 of 2013, preferred by respondent no. 1, three prayers are made, first and second prayers are pertaining to allotment for which respondent no. 1 makes the statement that the question of allotment cannot be decided by the Civil Court because there is exclusive jurisdiction with the Registrar, Cooperative Society under Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and, therefore, prayer nos. 1 and 2 are not pressed and necessary application shall be preferred by respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) who is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 57 of 2013 for not pressing prayer nos. 1 and 2 about the allotment of the plot, in question and let the proceedings before the Registrar, Cooperative Society be completed at the earliest. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) that so far as third prayer in Title Suit No. 57 of 2013 is concerned, which is about cancellation of registered sale deed which has been executed by the Cooperative Society in favour of this appellant (original respondent no. 4 of the writ petition), for that prayer, suit is always maintainable and tenable at law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that let the Registrar, Cooperative Society be directed to dispose of the matter pending before him and till then Ranchi Regional Development Authority may be restrained from passing any order because the order of the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority will have much bearing upon the order to be passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society under Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and, therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.