Find a Lawyer

-- S. 56-Allotment, cancellation of-Allottee's dues accepted after 23 years without examining his bona fide - Question that such allottee neither member nor fulfilled qualification of allottee as such plot could not be allotted to him not raised before Deputy Registrar-No step or action taken during 25 years-Cancellation of plot, held, not proper in circumstances of case.

--- Art. 9-Writ jurisdiction-Court. held, not bound to set aside every order not advancing cause of justice-Order not advancing cause of justice Court may in proper cases refuse to set aside same.

--- Ss. 64-A & 54-Revision-Contentions that respondent has no jurisdiction to revise order of Deputy Registrar held, has no force--Provincial Government and Minister concerned empowered to exercise revisional jurisdiction.

Azhar Ali Siddiqui for Petitioner.

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 5 passed under section 64-A of Co-operative Societies Act, 1945. The petitioner is a member of Bahadur Yar Jung Co-operative Housing Society Limited the respondent No. 2 of which the respondent No. 1 is also a member. The respondent No. 1 was allotted a plot in the society in 1953. In the year 1978 the petitioner made an application under section 4 of the Act before respondent No. 3 alleging that the allotment was made to a fake person and, therefore, it should be cancelled and allotted to the petitioner. The nominee of the Registrar made his award on 10th April, 1978 dismissing the said case of the Petitioner. An appeal was filed by him against the said award and the Deputy Registrar by an order dated 24th September, 1978 set aside the award and ordered for de novo trial under section 54 of the said Act. A revision under section 64-A was filed by the respondent No. 1 and it was ordered that the Deputy Registrar should hear and decide the case himself within two months. The Deputy Registrar heard the case and by his order dated 4th May, 1980 held that the allotment in favour of respondent No. 1 be cancelled and the plot allotted to him be allotted by the society on merits. The respondent No. I then filed a revision before the respondent No. 5 who by his order dated 9th February, . 1982 set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner has challenged this order in this Petition.

Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under bye-law 7 of respondent No. 2 only such persons can be the members of the Society who belong to Hyderabad Deccan and shall be Muslims migrating to Pakistan. According to the learned counsel the respondent No. 1 does not fulfill this qualification and, therefore, neither he could be a member of the Society nor the plot could be allotted to him.

A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar shows that this ground was not raised by the petitioner. The only ground seems to have been urged was that after the plot was finally allotted in the name of respondent No. 1 in 1953, till 1976 no contact was made by the respondent No. 1 with the respondent No. 2 and after a period of 23 years, dues were paid to the respondent No. 2 which were accepted. Without examining the bona fide of the depositor and this was termed to be a fake dealing. In the wake of these allegations the case seems to have proceeded before the Deputy Registrar on the-premises that the respondent No. 1 was not the bona fide member of the Society. At the time when the respondent No. 1 was admitted as members his bona ides would have been checked by the respondent No. 2. No steps or objection seem to have been taken for about 25 years and all of a sudden action is being taken by the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The impugned order has taken this aspect of the case into consideration while setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. The learned counsel of the petitioner has contended that the respondent No. 5 has failed to exercise proper jurisdic tion. In exercise of writ jurisdiction the Court is not bound to set aside every order, which may be found to be defective or irregular. If the setting aside of such an order would not advance the cause of justice the Court may in proper cases refuse to set it aside. This is the case of this nature where if the impugned order is set aside it will cause injustice to the other side.

Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui then contended that under section 64-A of the Act the respondent No. 5 had no jurisdiction to revise the order. A bare reading of the section shows that the Provincial Government is empowered to exercise revisional power and this power can be exercised by the Minister concerned.

In view of these reasons the, petition is dismissed in limine.

M.A.K. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.