IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.46120 OF 2014(CS-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. HANNATH D/O PAKRUDDIN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O IDKIDU VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 220.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. VISHWAJITH RAI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01 REP. BY ITS MINISTER.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALOE - 01.
3. THE SALE OFFICER KARNATAKA RAJYA KAIGARIKA SAHAKAR BANK NIYAMITHA MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA – 01.
4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND RECOVERY OFFICER KARNATAKA RAJYA KAIGARIKA SAHAKAR BANK NIYAMITHA BULL TEMPLE ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 4.
5. THE MANAGER KARNATAKA RAJYA KAIGARIKA SAHAKAR BANK NIYAMITHA HONNAVAR BRANCH HONNAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 01.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.C. BALARAJ, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R-4;
SRI. R. CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE ORDER IN ANNEX-A AND QUASH THE ORDER ANNEX-A DATED:20.08.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. M.Vishwajith Rai, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri.A.C.Balarj, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri. R.Chandranna, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
3. Fifth respondent in order to realize the amounts due to it had initiated proceedings for recovery and dispute raised by it came to be allowed and award came to be passed in its favour. In order to enjoy the fruits of the award property mortgaged to it bearing Sy.No.198-2P1 measuring 1 acre 55 cents was sought to be attached and sold. Petitioner who claims to have purchased 84 cents in said composite property under a registered sale deed (Annexure-B) dated 13.12.2004 approached the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by filing an appeal under Section 106 of The Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, contending interalia that he had purchased said property after having taken all reasonable steps and on being satisfied that there was no existing encumbrances he had purchased the property. Said appeal came to be opposed by the fifth respondent-Bank and Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies by order dated 09.08.2010 allowed the appeal in part and held that Bank is empowered to sell the property mortgaged to it by excluding the portion which is said to have been purchased by petitioner herein.
4. Fifth respondent-Bank being aggrieved by said order filed a Revision Petition under Section 108 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 before Revisional Authority in case No.C0: 01 CAP 2012 and Revisional Authority by impugned order dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure-A) has allowed the revision petition and has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Hence, this petition.
5. The records would disclose that along with Revision petition, an application for condonation of delay came to be filed by petitioner, since order passed by DRCS dated 09.08.2010 had been challenged in revision petition which was beyond the prescribed period of six months. Hence, said application was required to be considered at first instance by the Revisional Authority before examining the revision petition on merits.
6. Sri. A.C.Balaraj, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 has filed statement of objections today, though reiterates the grounds urged in the statement of objections by contending that application for condonation of delay had been filed and disposed of by Revisional Authority, no such order of Revisional Authority for having condoned the delay has been placed on record. In other words, impugned order when perused does not suggest or indicate or disclose about application for condonation of delay having been filed, considered, adjudicated and disposed of. In the absence of said application for condonation of delay being disposed of, revision petition could not have been considered and disposed of on merits by the Revisional Authority. On this short ground alone, petitioner has to succeed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (1) Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 20.08.2014-Annexure-A passed by Revisional Authority is quashed and case No.C0: 01 CAP 2012 is restored to its file.
(2) Revisional Authority is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law keeping in mind observations made hereinabove, expeditiously and at any rate, within six months from the date of appearance of parties.
SD/- JUDGE RU