IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.309 OF 2016 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. K.V. PADMA WIFE OF D.H. SOMARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CARE OF SRIKANTAIAHA, RESIDING AT NO.63, 14TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.V.S.VENKATESHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.146, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU -560 003.
2. BAPUJI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.107/B, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU -560 040, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3. T.B. VISHWANATH SON OF T.J. BASAVARADHYA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.118/5, 6TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040.
4. D.N. HANUMAIAH SON OF MUDDEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.30 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040.
5. DR. D.H. RAMESH D.N. HANUMAIAHA RESIDING AT NO.30, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040.
6. DR. JAYANNA SON OF C.N. CHANNAVEERAIAHA RESIDING AT NO.655, 6TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040.
7. M.R. SHUBHASHANKARAN SON OF N.K. RAGHAVAN RESIDING AT NO.2959, 13TH B MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040.
8. J.P. PRASANNA KUMAR SON OF J. AJJEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO. 166, 1ST CROSS, 6TH MAIN REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMINARAYANA, AGA. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI.J M ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7 RESPONDENT Nos.2, 4, 5 AND 6 ARE SERVED RESPONDENT NO.8 - J.P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2019) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.24896/2015 DATED 16/12/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24896 of 2015, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the judgment dated 13.11.2014 in Appeal No.333/2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is a member of second respondent/Co-operative Society and had sought for allotment of a house site. The petitioner contends that being senior member of the Society, she is entitled for allotment of a site over other junior members of the Society. As the second respondent-society allotted sites to the junior members of the society, the petitioner raised a dispute. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies before whom the dispute was raised, by his order dated 12.07.2010 set aside the allotment made in favour of respondent No.3 herein and directed to allot site to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, respondent No.3 herein filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.333/2010. The Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 13.11.2014 set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and directed respondent No.2-Scoeity herein to prepare the seniority list of members and submit it to the first respondent and the first respondent shall thereafter hear the dispute afresh. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, filed writ petition No.24896/2015.
3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, by his order dated 16.12.2015 directed the Society to prepare the seniority list and place it before the Authority to enable it to take a decision. Further, the learned Single Judge also directed to decide the seniority list with expedition and to decide the petitioner’s claim for allotment on priority. The petitioner is in appeal against this order of the learned Single Judge.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writ appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there already exists a seniority list and there was no necessity for a direction to prepare the fresh seniority list. The petitioner is a senior member of the second respondent- society and she is entitled for allotment of a site.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has rightly remanded the matter to the first respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the Society to prepare a seniority list and place it before the authority to take a decision with expedition, which needs no interference.
7. The petitioner had raised dispute before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operatives Societies, Bengaluru, as the second respondent Society had allotted sites to junior members ignoring the seniority of members. The Deputy Registrar on enquiry, even though the allotment made in favour of respondents No.2 to 7 was challenged, set aside the allotment made in favour of 7th respondent only and directed to allot site to the petitioner. The said order was taken in appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal where no seniority list was produced at the first instance. As such, the Tribunal rightly directed the respondent- Society to prepare seniority list of its members and to place it before the first respondent who in turn shall hear the dispute afresh. The Tribunal, while passing the order has observed that the first respondent-Deputy Registrar has proceeded to pass orders setting aside the allotment on the basis of an invalid seniority list and hence has rightly directed to prepare seniority list and proceed further. Unless, there is proper seniority list of the members of the second respondent-Society, the petitioner cannot claim that she is senior and she is entitled for allotment of a site. The learned Single Judge has rightly directed the Society to prepare seniority list with expedition and to decide the claim of allotment to the petitioner on priority. The learned Single Judge has protected the interest of the petitioner observing that on preparation of seniority list, the claim shall be considered on priority. Hence, we see no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms