1 2025:CGHC:5556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1117 of 2012 Shashikant Daga, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Omprakash Daga, R/o Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Cooperative Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Avanti Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh Vivekanand Complex, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30/01/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs order/orders direction/directions and the writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.02.2012, passed by the State Government and the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 24.09.2009 and the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.03 15:03:13 +0530 2 Registrar, Cooperative Societies and dispute raised by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, may kindly be allowed. 2] The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records in respect of the instant case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a plot under Avanti Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit (Society), Raipur on 08.05.1987 and deposited Rs. 2,000/- towards the value of the land and Rs. 10,000/- towards the development charges, thus, a sum total of Rs. 12,000/- was paid by the petitioner. He further submits that despite deposition of the entire amount, the plot was not allotted to the petitioner, therefore, a suit was filed before the Sub-Registrar, Co- operative Societies according to provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 01.03.2006 wherein respondent No. 2 filed a reply on 05.01.2007 taking pleas that (i) the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to choose the plot but he failed to do the same; (ii) a letter was issued to the petitioner on 09.08.2003 for the refund of the earnest amount; (iii) the petitioner rejected the proposal of the alternative plot and (iv) and, the suit filed U/s 64 of Act, 1960 is time-barred. He also submits that the Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide order dated 06.01.2009 directed respondent No. 2-Society to provide a plot in a new project to the petitioner or refund the amount already paid. He contends that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint- Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2009 directing respondent No. 2-Society to provide a plot in Telibandha Project and in the alternative, provide any plot to the 3 petitioner on priority basis in some other project. 3) Pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2009, the petitioner submitted a representation before the President of respondent No.2-Society for compliance with the order dated 24.09.2009 but that application was rejected on 06.11.2009. He further contends that the petitioner again raised a dispute before the Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies and that was dismissed stating that the Sub-Registrar cannot interpret the order passed by its superior authority (first appellate authority). He also contends that the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the Joint- Registrar, Co-operative Societies which was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2010 whereby respondent No. 2-Society was directed to provide a plot to the petitioner and communicate about the same to the authority concerned. He argues that the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who vide order dated 29.08.2011 directed respondent No. 2-Society to provide an alternative plot and refund the amount deposited. He further argues that the petitioner preferred a revision before the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh claiming therein plot in Telibandha Project or in any future project of the society. The revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2012. He also argues that the amount of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited by the petitioner on 08.05.1987 and despite the deposition of the aforementioned amount, respondent No. 2 failed to provide the plot in the Telibandha Project or in any alternative project till date. He prays that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 2 to provide a plot in the Telibandha Project and if there is no plot available in that project, respondent No. 2 may be directed to provide an alternative plot in some other project. 4 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-Society submits that pursuant to the order passed by Joint- Registrar/ Registrar, Co-operative Societies, a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was sent to the petitioner through registered post on 07.01.2009 and another cheque of Rs. 27,000/- was sent to the petitioner through registered post on 19.03.2012. He further submits that the petitioner failed to approach the society to get the plot allotted, therefore, the plot was not allotted to the petitioner and when plots were sold out, the petitioner entered into litigation before the Sub-Registrar/ Joint- Registrar/ Registrar, Co-operative Societies. He also submits that the society was always ready to provide a plot to the petitioner and on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner, the plot could not be allotted to the petitioner. He contends that the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 13.02.2012 rightly dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. He further contends that a writ Court cannot be used as an appellate forum for the redressal of personal grievances. He also contends that the petitioner failed to point out lacunae in the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Learned State counsel supports the arguments advanced by Mr. Khulesh Sahu. 6) It is appropriate to mention some facts arising out of the instant case which are as under:- (i) the petitioner, who was a founder member of respondent No. 2-Society deposited Rs. 12,000/- for allotment of land on 05.08.1987. (ii) the plot was not allotted to the petitioner, 5 therefore a dispute was raised before Sub- Registrar/ Joint-Registrar/ Registrar, Co-operative Societies and twice orders were passed in favor of the petitioner whereby the society was directed to provide a plot in Telibandha Project or in any other project or initiate refund of the amount already paid. (iii) when no steps were taken by respondent No. 2/ Society, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2012 (Annexure P/1). (iv) the counsel for the respondents failed to demonstrate whether any demand notice was sent to the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of the plot. (v) documents annexed to the return shows that on 07.01.2009, a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was issued but it does not contain any postal receipt; another cheque of Rs. 27,000/- was issued on 19.03.2012 after a period of three years and the postal receipt is annexed along with. 7) As the petitioner was a founder-member of respondent No. 2-Society, it was under obligation to allot a plot to the petitioner, though he has not approached the society. The society ought to have approached the petitioner before allotting his plot to someone else which caused the petitioner to wander from pillar to post. 8) As the fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated, therefore, the petitioner has every right to approach the writ Court for redressal of his grievance. Respondent No. 2-Society which is a registered society 6 grabbed the money of the petitioner, failed to provide a plot and also flouted the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar/ Joint-Registrar/ Registrar, Co-operative Societies, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has rightly approached this Court. 9) With regard to the refund of the amount, respondent No. 2 tried to refund the amount after 25 years and there is no explanation as to why the plot was not allotted to the petitioner. The Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh without considering this aspect and without evaluating the material available on record quashed the orders passed by the Joint-Registrar/ Registrar, Co-operative Societies and thus, the order dated 13.02.2012 is not sustainable. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh dated 13.02.2012 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to get either a plot or lieu of plot, a compensation of Rs. 25,00,0000/- (twenty-five lakhs) since the petitioner deposited Rs. 12,000/- way back in the year 1987. 11) The entire exercise shall be carried out by respondent No. 2/Society within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya