Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8994 OF 2020 (CS-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 8998 OF 2020 (CS-RES)
IN WP No. 8994/2020:
BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGAPPA S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16/01 6TH CROSS, II MAIN, GAVIPURAM, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560019 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001
2.
THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (HOUSE AND MISC) NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560052
3.
SRI. K.S. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY S/O LATE SUBBARAYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
RESIDING AT NO.9, 7TH MAIN, 23RD CROSS, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
(RESPONDENT NO.3 DIED ON 04.09.2023, AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 06.06.2025)
3(a) SMT. K.S.ANASUYAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY RESIDING AT NO.9, 7TH MAIN, 23RD CROSS, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
3(b) SRI. K.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, 4TH CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
3(c) SRI. K.S.JANARDHAN, S/O LATE K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O SNS RICE FLOUR MILL, NO.24, 'F' ROAD, BANGARAPET-563114 KOLAR DISTRICT.
3(d) SMT. LALITHA VISWANATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O L. KASIVISWANADHAM, D/O LATE K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY RESIDING AT NO.11, 'I' A-CROSS, BHAVANI HOUSING SOCIETY, BANAGIRI NAGARA, (NEAR DEVEGOWDA PETROL PUMP)
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER DATED 06.06.2025)
4.
SRI. K.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O K.S. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, 4TH CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
5.
SRI. K.S. JANARDHAN S/O K.S. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O SNS RICE FLOUR MILL, NO.24, 'F' ROAD, BANGARAPET-563114 KOLAR DISTRICT
6.
SRI. K.S. GOWDEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.31, 5TH 'B' BLOCK, BHAVANI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REGD) BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU-560085
RESPONDENT NO.6 DELETED AS PER
ORDER DATED 05.06.2023/13.04.2023
7. BHAVANI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REGD) NO.239, BASAVANAGUDI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BENGLAURU-560018 NEW ADDRESS AT NO.27, RAMAMANDIR ROAD, KAVERINAGAR, KATHRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
BENGALURU-560085 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. P.H. DAYANANDA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANESH BHAT Y.H., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.5 AND RESPONDENT NOs.3(a) to 3(d);
SRI. KHAMAROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. P. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7;
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4;
VIDE ORDERS DATED 13.04.2023 AND 05.06.2023, RESPONDENT NO.6 IS DELETED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2025, RESPONDENT NO.5 IS ALSO TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.7 IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTE NO.ANI/(H AND M)D-2/NMD/02/2014-15 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-L AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2020 IN APPEAL NO.214 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 8998/2020: BETWEEN:
SRI NARAYANA KUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12,
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
4TH CROSS, II MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (HOUSE AND MISC) NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560052
3. SRI. K.S. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY S/O LATE SUBBARAYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, 7TH MAIN, 23RD CROSS, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
(RESPONDENT NO.3 DIED ON 04.09.2023, AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 06.06.2025)
3(a) SMT. K.S.ANASUYAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY RESIDING AT NO.9, 7TH MAIN, 23RD CROSS, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
3(b) SRI. K.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, 4TH CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
3(c) SRI. K.S.JANARDHAN, S/O LATE K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O SNS RICE FOUR MILL, NO.24, 'F' ROAD, BANGARAPET-563114 KOLAR DISTRICT. 3(d) SMT.
LALITHA VISWANATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O L. KASIVISWANADHAM, D/O LATE K.S.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY RESIDING AT NO.11, 'I' A-CROSS, BHAVANI HOUSING SOCIETY, BANAGIRI NAGARA, (NEAR DEVEGOWDA PETROL PUMP) BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER DATED 06.06.2025)
4.
SRI. K.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O K.S. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, 4TH CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040
5.
SRI. K.S. JANARDHAN S/O K.S. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O SNS RICE FLOUR MILL,
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
NO.24, 'F' ROAD, BANGARAPET-563114 KOLAR DISTRICT
6.
SRI. K.S. GOWDEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.31, 5TH 'B' BLOCK, BHAVANI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REGD) BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU-560085
RESPONDENT NO.6 DELETED AS PER
ORDER DATED 05.06.2023/13.04.2023
7.
BHAVANI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REGD) NO.239, BASAVANAGUDI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560018 NEW ADDRESS AT NO.27, RAMAMANDIR ROAD, KAVERINAGAR, KATHRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. P.H. DAYANANDA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
GANESH BHAT Y.H., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.5 AND RESPONDENT NOs.3(a) to 3(d);
SRI. KHAMAROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. P. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7;
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023, RESPONDENT NO.6 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2025, RESPONDENT NO.5 IS TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED)
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.7 IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTE NO.ANI/(H AND M)D-2/NMD/01/2014-15 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-L AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2020 IN APPEAL NO.215 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner in W.P. No.8994/2020 has challenged an
order dated 27.05.2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.214/2018. He has also challenged an
order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No.C¤(ªÀ&E)/r-2/J£ïJAr/02/2014-15 (for brevity, 'Dispute No.02/2014-15'). He has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.7 to
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
allot corner Site No.24, Q-Block formed in the land bearing Sy. No.17 and its sub Nos.17/12, 17/14, 17/15, 17/16, 17/17, 17/20 and Sy. Nos.125, 126/1, 126/2, 132 and 133 (parts of old Sy. No.17) of Kathriguppe Village, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No.8998/2020 has challenged an order dated 27.05.2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No.215/2018. He has also challenged an Order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No.C¤(ªÀ&E)/r2/J£ïJAr/01/2014-15 (for brevity, 'Dispute No.01/2014-15'). He has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.7 to allot corner Site No.25, Q-Block formed in the land bearing aforesaid survey numbers situate in Kathriguppe Village, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. 3. The respective petitioners in W.P Nos.8994/2020 and 8998/2020 (henceforth referred to as ‘petitioners’) were members of the respondent No.7 which is a House Building Co-
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
operative Society. The petitioners claim that they had invested their hard earned money for allotment of a site by the respondent No.7. The petitioners had raised the issue regarding allotment of a site to them before the General Body meeting of the respondent No.7 every year. However, the same was deferred many a time. On the contrary, the respondent No.7 had allotted sites bearing Nos.31, 24 and 25 in the layout formed in the aforesaid survey numbers of land situate in Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Banashankari III Stage in favour of respondent Nos.3, 5 and 4 respectively, though they were much junior than the petitioners and they all belong to one family. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 in collusion with office bearers of respondent No.7 had executed sale deed/s in their favour without following the bye-laws of the respondent No.7.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the non-allotment of site/s and the illegal allotment of sites to respondent Nos.3 to 5 raised dispute/s before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 passed separate interim orders of even date i.e. 20.09.2014 in Dispute Nos.02:2014-15 and 01:2014-15 raised by the petitioner in WP No.8994/2020 and WP No.8998/2020 respectively restraining respondent Nos.5 and 4 herein
- 11 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
respectively from alienating or encumbering the Site bearing Nos.24 and 25 respectively. The petitioners claimed that they had paid a sum of Rs.1,24,500/- and Rs.3,75,000/- respectively as part of the allotment price to the respondent No.7. However, the respondent No.7 had flouted the norms relating to seniority and had allotted sites to several members, who were juniors than the petitioners. They also contend that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the sons of respondent No.3. The respondent No.7 had allotted Site No.24 to the respondent No.5 and Site No.25 to the respondent No.4. The petitioners contend that respondent Nos.3 to 5 being the members of the same family were not eligible for allotment of more than one site. They contend that the respondent No.5 had also another property bearing No.22, PID No.21-90-22 situate at 3rd Main Road, Industrial Town, Bengaluru. They contend that respondent No.3 was allotted Site No.31 measuring 45 feet x 40 feet and he had alienated it in favour of one Sri K.S. Gowdegowda / respondent No.6 (deleted) on 01.10.2003. The petitioners contend that they have been waiting for an allotment from the year 1974 and 1986 respectively and the respondent No.7 without preferentially allotting the sites to the
- 12 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
petitioners had arbitrarily allotted the same to respondent Nos.3 to 5. The respondents 3 to 5 filed objections before the respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 relied upon the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Siddamma v. Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore and Others [2016(2) KCCR 1655] and in terms of two separate orders of even date i.e 13.08.2018, held that since sale deeds were already executed by the respondent No.7 in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5, he did not have the authority to anull or cancel the sale deeds and directed the petitioners to avail the remedy of a suit before a Civil Court. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said orders of respondent No.2, filed appeals in Appeal Nos.214/2018 and 215/2018 respectively, before the Tribunal which were also dismissed in terms of two separate orders of even date i.e.
27.05.2020. 4. Being aggrieved by the above, the petitioners are before this Court. 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No.8994/2020 submits that the petitioner had deposited part of
- 13 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
the sital value from the year 1974 and therefore, was a senior member who was entitled for allotment of a site. He contends that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were admitted as members later and they had deposited the sital value much later and therefore, stood no chance for allotment of site over and above the petitioner. He likewise contends that the petitioner in W.P. No.8998/2020 became a member of the respondent No.7 in the year 1986 and deposited a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- in the year 1986 towards the part of the allotment price of the site. He contends that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 had deposited the sital value on 17.04.1999 and therefore, the respondent No.7 could not have allotted the site No.24 and 25 to respondent Nos.5 and 4 respectively. He contends that the respondent No.2 and the Tribunal failed to consider that the question regarding the seniority between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 was a dispute, which essentially had to be determined by the respondent No.2. He contends that once the seniority of the petitioners was determined, the respondent No.2 could have relegated the petitioners to work out their remedy before the Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deed/s executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and for recovery
- 14 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
of possession of the sites. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 and the Tribunal committed an error in holding that there is no power under the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act, 1959') to cancel the sale deeds executed by the respondent No.7 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 6(i). The petitions are opposed by the respondent Nos.3(b), 3(c) and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in these petitions, who have contended that the writ petitions are mischievous and that the petitioners have deliberately not produced the petition/s filed by them before the respondent No.2. They contend that if the same were placed along with the writ petitions, it would have disclosed that the dispute/s raised under Section 70 of the Act, 1959 is not maintainable.
They contend that the respondent No.2 as well as the Tribunal had rightly not entertained the dispute of the petitioners in view of the law declared by this Court in Smt. Siddamma (supra). (ii). They contend that the petitioners are only front men of Mr. P.H. Dayananda, the Secretary of the respondent No.7. They contend that the dispute before the respondent
- 15 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
No.2 under section 70 of the Act, 1959 and the appeal before the Tribunal were all filed at the instance of Mr. P.H. Dayananda. (iii). They contend that this Court noticed that the respondent No.7 was acting through its Secretary, who had sought amendments of the bye-laws of the respondent No.7 - Society before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru. The amendment was to the effect that a member could become ineligible to be allotted a site if he or any member of his family owned or possessed a site in Bengaluru City. The said amendment was permitted on
03.12.2013. They contend that respondent No.5 was allotted Site No.24 by the respondent No.7 - Society prior to 17.04.1999 and same was conveyed to him vide sale deed dated 17.04.1999. Similarly, the respondent No.4 was allotted Site No.25 by the respondent No.7 - Society prior to 17.04.1999 and same was conveyed to him vide sale deed dated 17.04.1999. Therefore, they contend that the amended bye-laws of the Society which came into effect from 03.12.2013 were not applicable to the allotment of site made in favour of respondent Nos.4 and
5. Likewise, they contend that
- 16 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
respondent Nos.4 and 5 were also not ineligible to be allotted the site bearing Nos.25 and 24 respectively.
Thus, they contended that the respective disputes raised by the petitioners were ill-motivated, misconceived and were rightly dismissed by the respondent No.2. They also contended that the petitioners had not produced any documentary evidence to establish to prove their claim that they were admitted as member/s of the respondent No.7 and that they were much senior than them for the purposes of allotment of a site and also that they had paid the sital value much earlier than them. They contend that the ledger extracts of the respondent No.7 produced along with the writ petitions vide Annexure/s "C" are concocted and fabricated as they do not bear the seal and signature of the person who had allegedly issued them. They contend that the petitioners have not arrayed all those persons who were allotted sites by respondent No.7 overlooking the seniority of the petitioners. They also contend that the petitioners have not explained as to what they were doing from the date of the alleged application for allotment of a site till they raised a dispute in the year 2014-15. Therefore, they contend that the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay. They
- 17 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
contended that this Court in case of Smt. Siddamma (supra) and in case of Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Limited v. D.R. Mruthyunjaya Aradhya [2008 (3) KCCR 1692], had held that the dispute raised under Section 70 of the Act, 1959 to determine the validity of a sale and for its cancellation is not maintainable before the Authorities under the Act, 1959. Therefore, they contend that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners which precisely seek the same reliefs were rightly not entertained by the respondent No.2. They contend that if the petitioners have any grievance, they have to work it out before the Civil Court. 7.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(d) and 5 in W.P. No.8994/2020 and for respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(d) and 4 in W.P. No.8998/2020 submitted that the facts of the case are squarely covered by the judgment/s of a coordinate bench/es of this Court in cases of Smt. Siddamma (supra) and D.R. Mruthyunjaya Aradhya (supra) and therefore, respondent No.2 and the Tribunal did not rightly entertain the case of the petitioners. He contends that cancellation of a sale deed is not within the domain of respondent No.2 and therefore, it is for
- 18 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and establish their better right and seek necessary reliefs. He, therefore, submits that there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders.
8. Further, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners have selectively proceeded against the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 while there are several members who were allotted sites ignoring the seniority of the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that the proceedings before the respondent No.2 and these writ petitions are designed only to harass the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(d) and 5 in W.P. No.8994/2020 and for respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(d) and 4 in W.P. No.8998/2020.
10. The respondent No.7 is a House Building Co- operative Society and is constituted amongst the members who were desirous of having a residential site in the City of Bengaluru. The respondent No.7 is, therefore, bound to follow the rule of law as set out in its bye-laws of the
- 19 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
respondent No.7-Society and the Rules and Regulations. In
order to do so, it is incumbent upon respondent No.7 to maintain appropriate list of members who are admitted and the list of members who have applied and paid the sital deposit for allotment of a site in the layout formed by it. These lists have to be maintained based on seniority and the allotments should be also based on such seniority so that the members who are admitted first are given the first privilege. In the case on hand, the petitioners claim that they became members in 1974 and in 1986 respectively and also claim that the petitioner in W.P. No.8994/2020 started depositing the sital value in installments from the year 1974 and the petitioner in W.P. No.8998/2020 deposited a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- in the year 1996. Contrarily, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 though claimed that they became members prior to 1999, did not specify as to when exactly they were admitted as members of the respondent No.7. The cause title shows that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were aged 56 and 55 years respectively during the year 2020 when these writ petitions were filed and taking into account the allotment of Site Nos.25 and 24 respectively in their favour in the year 1999, it could be that they were then aged 25 years and 24
- 20 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
years respectively. They therefore, could not have been members prior to petitioners as they would have been minors in the years 1974 and 1986. The respondent No.2 is the appropriate Authority to determine the question of seniority amongst the members for allotment of a site as Section 70 of the Act, 1959 confers power on him to determine disputes regarding constitution and business of a Co-operative society and issue regarding membership would fall within the ambit of constitution while a dispute regarding seniority for allotment of a site would fall within the ambit of business of the Co- operative society. The respondent No.2 being the competent officer to determine such disputes is also conferred with very many powers under the Act, 1959 for ensuring compliance of its orders. This does not restrict to Sections 29-C, 30 and 31 of the Act, 1959 apart from Section 118 of the Act, 1959.
Therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have thrown out the cases of the petitioners on the ground that he does not have the authority or the power to invalidate or cancel the sale deed/s executed by the respondent No.7 in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. The respondent No.2 must have determined the issue regarding seniority of the petitioners vis a
- 21 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
vis the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and if need be, to cancel the allotment of sites in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and must have directed the respondent No.7 to issue appropriate allotment letters to the petitioners and should have reserved to them the right to approach the competent Civil Court for invalidation / cancellation of sale deeds. instead of doing so, the respondent No.2 has escaped from his responsibility by relying upon the judgments of this Court in cases of Smt. Siddamma and D.R. Mruthyunjaya Aradhya (supra). 11. Since it is the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the petitioners have selectively proceeded against them though there were several members who were juniors than the petitioners who were allotted sites, respondent No.2 being the appropriate Authority was bound to look into the seniority list prepared by the respondent No.7 for allotment of sites and was bound to take corrective measures to restore seniority amongst the members. Therefore, the course adopted by the respondent No.2 in rejecting the disputes raised by the petitioners is incorrect and the same deserves to be set at nought. - 22 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
12. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed in part. 13(i). The order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No.C¤(ªÀ&E)/r2/J£ïJAr/02/2014-15 impugned in W.P No.8994/2020 and the
order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No. C¤(ªÀ&E)/r2/J£ïJAr/01/2014-15 impugned in W.P No.8998/2020 and the orders of even date i.e. 27.05.2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal Nos.214/2018 and 215/2018, which are impugned in W.P. No.8994/2020 and W.P. No.8998/2020 respectively, are quashed. (ii). The cases are remitted back to the respondent No.2, who shall secure the seniority list prepared by the respondent No.7, in respect of those members who had paid the sital deposit. He shall also determine the seniority of the petitioners vis a vis respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. If the respondent No.2 is of the opinion that the petitioners are senior than the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, the respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders declaring the seniority of the
- 23 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
petitioners and cancel the allotment of sites to respondent Nos.4 and 5 and direct respondent No.7 to allot sites to the petitioners. In that event, respondent No.2 shall direct the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed/s executed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and for re-convey of possession of the concerned sites. (iii). The respondent No.2 shall also revisit the seniority list prepared by respondent No.7 by initiating separate proceedings to ascertain whether the preparation of the seniority list was in accordance with the seniority of the members who had deposited the sital value and whether sites were allotted based on seniority, so as to ensure regularity in the activities of the respondent No.7. (iv). In order to expedite this process, the respective petitioner in both these petitions and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3 i.e. respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(d), 4, 5 and respondent No.7 represented by its Secretary, and any person claiming through the respondent No.3 shall
- 24 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37858 WP No. 8994 of 2020 C/W WP No. 8998 of 2020
appear before the respondent No.2 on 30.09.2025 at 3.00 p.m. (v). The respondent No.7 shall place the list of seniority maintained by it in respect of all members who had paid sital deposit before the respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 shall issue cause notice to all those persons who have been conferred with undue favour by the respondent No.7 - Society in allotment of the sites in violation of seniority and proceed in accordance with law. (vi). Respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall not alienate any site/s allotted to them till the proceedings before the respondent No.2 are concluded. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
sma/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23