- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 23429 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. S. SHOBHA AGED 48 YEARS, W/O SRI. PUTTAIAH, RESIDING AT NO. 1428, 3RD CROSS ROAD, 80 FEET ROAD, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560040 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO:241/11, 9TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560040. MOBILE NO:9449805536 MAIL ID:SHOBHAPURIHA@GMAIL.COM …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KULKARNI P.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.146, 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD, BENGALURU-560003. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BAPUJI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., NO.107/B, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU 560026. A SOCIETY REGD. UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 3. SRI. N. DEVARAJU, AGED 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 S/O SRI. G. NARAYANAPPA, RESIDING AT NO 3055/A, DEVI ELECTRICAL STORES, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MARIYAPPANA PALYA, BENGALURU 560021. 4. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES-II, NO. 146, MALLESHWARAM, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BUILDING, MARGOSA ROAD, BENGALURU 560003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 4 SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. KIRAN R. MALLANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU COMMON ORDER DATED 30.05.2024 ANNEXURE-M PASSED IN CO-OP APPEAL NO. 583/2010 C/W CO-OP APPEAL NO. 568/2011 AND ORDERS DATED 20.09.2024 ANNEXURE-N PASSED IN CO-OP APPEAL NO. 746/2009 SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the orders dated 30.05.2024 and 20.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the KAT') produced as per Annexures M and N respectively. 2. The petitioner contended that she is the member of respondent No.2 - Society. She was allotted the site bearing No.241 situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Chandra layout, Bengaluru measuring 1200 Sq.feet. The registered sale deed came to be executed on 06.07.1999 produced as per Annexure - A and accordingly, the khata was changed in her name. She paid tax as evidenced by Annexures - B and C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after getting the sale deed registered, she had constructed a house and discharged loan as per loan discharge certificate Annexure - D. According to the petitioner, she received Annexure - F dated 08.11.2006, signed by respondent No.2 to cancel the allotment on the ground that the senior members of the Society were not allotted with sites. When Annexure - F - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 was issued seeking to cancel the allotment on 08.11.2006, on the same day, as per Annexure - G, the site was allotted in favour of respondent No.4. So, the dispute was raised by the petitioner before respondent No.1. The said dispute was allowed on 29.09.2010. In the meantime, respondent No.4 raised dispute before respondent No.1 seeking to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The said dispute was dismissed. Therefore, respondent No.4 has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 by filing the Appeal No.583/2010 and respondent No.2 - Society challenged the said order by preferring the appeal in Appeal No.568/2011. Both these appeals came to be allowed by common order of KAT, thereby, setting aside the order passed by respondent No.1 and remanding the matter again for fresh consideration as per Annexure - M. 2. It is stated that respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal challenging the order dismissing his dispute by respondent No.1. Even the said appeal came to be allowed by KAT as per the order Annexure - N by remanding the matter for fresh consideration. It is stated that both these matters are now pending before respondent No.1 for consideration. In the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the orders of KAT remanding both the appeals for fresh consideration. 3. Heard Sri. Kulkarni P.A., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4, Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. Kiran R Mallannavar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment of site in favour of the petitioner was much prior to 1995. Thereafter, sale deed came to be executed on 06.07.1999 as per Annexure - A. The said sale deed was never challenged by anybody. Based on the sale deed, khata was changed, tax was paid and the building was constructed. Therefore, it is his contention that when the registered sale deed as per Annexure - A was executed by the Society, it is only the Civil Court which can grant relief of setting aside the sale deed, and respondent No.1 has no authority to pass such orders. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent No.3 that there are more than 100 such appeals pending before respondent No.1 as irregularities were committed by the ex-president of the Society. He created false documents styled as 'sale deed', even though Annexure - A is not the sale deed. Complaints came to be filed regarding rampant illegality committed by the president and other office bearers. A suo moto inspection under Section 65 of KCS Act was held, books of account of Society were verified and the inspection report as per Annexure - R3, came to be filed. 6. The report Annexure - R3 to refers to various illegalities. It is stated that several sites came to be allotted in favour of persons, who were not even the members. The Seniority list for allotting the sites was ignored and there was no basis for allotting the sites to strangers or to the new entrants. 7. Respondent No.1 decided the dispute that was filed before him and the said order was challenged by respondent No.4 before the KAT. The interim order Annexure - M and Annexure - N discloses that KAT has considered the rival - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 contentions of the parties and raised certain points for consideration and directed respondent No.1 to hold fresh enquiry in that line and to dispose off the dispute. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner had raised the dispute before respondent No.1 and submitted herself to the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. It is also admitted that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the KAT. The KAT has passed Annexure - M on 30.05.2024 and Annexure - N on 20.09.2024 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. But the present writ petition came to be filed only on 29.07.2025 i.e., after participating in the proceedings and after lapse of about a year after passing the impugned order. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any justification for the petitioner to approach this Court seeking the relief, which is already being considered by respondent No.1. After all, the petitioner wants to highlight the position of law that it is only the Civil Court which can set aside the registered sale deed. Such contention can very well be raised by the petitioner, before respondent No.1. But the same cannot be the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50220 WP No. 23429 of 2025 justification for the petitioner to file this petition. There is serious dispute with regard to nature of the documents styled as sale deed produced as per Annexure - A. However, respondent No.1 is already seized of the matter and therefore, I am not inclined to express any opinion about the same. 10. The parties are at liberty to take necessary contentions/defence before respondent No.1. I do not see any justification for the petitioner to move this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18