This case coming on 17.12.2014 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of M/s. S.K. Mohiuddin, S. Aejazuddin, P. Bharat Rao, G, Madhu Babu and K. Damayanthi, Advocates for the complainant and Sri V.R.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-
O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1 Seeking direction to the opposite party to execute a regular sale deed in his favour and also for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental and physical pain and agony, the complainant laid this complaint interalia contending that he is a retired police, and son one B. Nana Rao a retired S.I. of police who died in the month of August, 2000. While his father was in service he joined the opposite party society as a member. As per the norms of the society each member is entitled to a house plot in A.B.V.Nagar, II Phase. As he died the plot that, was earmarked to be given to him was allotted in the name of his wife B. Arundhati who is the mother of the complainant. Necessary fees and charges were collected by the opposite party and the entire value of the site was received by the opposite party. Inspite of repeated requests by her, the opposite party was postponing the registration of the site in her name on some pretext or other.
2. While the matter stood thus said Arundhati died on 30.03.2006. She executed a will in favour of the complainant on 27.03.2006 bequeathing the said house property to him. Subsequent to the death of his mother the complainant became the owner of the property as devolved on him as per the terms of the will. Subsequent to her death the complainant approached the opposite party number of times for the obtaining regular sale deed. Required registration fees was also collected by the opposite party from the complainant, but postponing the execution of sale deed on some pretext or other. For notice dated 17.02.2011 issued by him to the opposite party they issued reply notice with false allegations.
3. The opposite party filed its counter denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them, the complainant is the member of the opposite party and also got a building No.39 in Gopinathnagar Colony allotted and registered in his name by the opposite party. As already he owns a house he is not entitled for a second plot as per the byelaws of the society.
4. It is also their contention Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act provides for the settlement of disputes between the member and Co-operative society. This petition against the cooperative society before the Consumer Forum is barred by Section 121 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. It is also their case B.Nana Rao was the member of the opposite party and he seized to be the member of the society on his death. The plots are not earmarked to any member as per the bylaws of the society. As such the allotments if any made in the name of the mother of the complainant is irregular and contrary to the provisions of the byelaws as non members are not entitled for any allotment of plots as per byelaw No.42[B]. The nominees are only eligible to receive the amounts that stood in his name. Further it is also their contention that any employee working in Police Department in East Godavari District is only eligible to be admitted as member. As such Smt. B. Arundhati is not eligible to be admitted as member of the society. Another contention of the opposite party is that allotment of plot even to a member doesn’t confirm any right for registration of the same in his favour as the member is required to fulfill certain conditions laid down thereunder. Further the allotment of the plot is not transferable or alienable. As per byelaw of 42[b] in case of joint family one person as may be decided by the members of such family shall be given a plot. Further as per byelaw of 42[b][9] the member owning house plots or houses either in their name or in the name of any member of their family in the town or the area covered by the society shall not be eligible for allotment of plots. As the complainant has house in his name in the area of operations of the society he is not entitled for any allotment or registration of any other plot in the society. Thus according to them there is no deficiency of service and thus sought dismissal of the complaint.
5 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for a direction from this Forum for registration of plot in the name as sought by him?
3. Whether there is deficiency of service on the party of the opposite party?
6 Point No.1: The bone of contention of the opposite party is that the present dispute squarely falls under Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act which provides for settlement of disputes between member on one hand and the society on the other hand.
7 On the other hand it is the contention of the complainant that the dispute does not fall under the provisions of Section 61 of A.P. co-operative Societies Act, as the complainant is a legatee under the will executed by his mother and as there is deficiency of service certainly this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus in view of the contention raised by the opposite party touching the jurisdiction of this Forum, now it is to be seen whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8 it is useful to referred Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act to come to the conclusion whether this Forum has any jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act reads as follows: “notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee or the society, arises”
[a] among members, past member and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or
[b] between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; or
[c] between the society or its committee, and any past committee, any officer, agent, or employee or any past officer, past agent or a past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society;
[d] between the society and any other society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision.
9. A bare reading of the above said section clearly shows the disputes among the members interse or the dispute between members and society shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. Such dispute shall be touch the constitution, management of the business of society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action etc.
10 As seen from the contention of the rival parties and also byelaws of the opposite party it is marked as Ex.B2, the society can allot the plots among the members who are the employee of the police department in East Godavari District. As the society undertakes acquiring the land and distribute the plots to its members certainly it can be termed as the business of the society. An Authority is created under law to settle the disputes between the members and society and said authority is the Registrar of co-operative societies. As such what is manifest is the present dispute is between the member of the opposite party society and the society itself touching the business certainly it comes within the ambit of Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the said dispute shall be decided by the Registrar.
11 In view of Section 61 this Forum can not entertain the complaint and it is for the Registrar of the A.P. Co-operative societies to settle the dispute between the complaint and the opposite party. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
12 Points No.2 & 3: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1 these points 2 and 3 need not be answered.
13 In the result, the complaint is returned to be present before proper Authority.
Dictation by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 07th day of January, 2015
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : None For opposite party : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Allotment order of plots issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A2 19.03.2005 Receipt for Rs. 46,500/- issued by the opposite party
Ex.A3 31.08.2005 Receipt for Rs. 15,000/- issued by the opposite party
Ex.A4 27.03.2006 Copy of the will executed by B. Arundhati
Ex.A5 30.03.2003 Death certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam
Ex.A6 17.02.2011 Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A7 11.03.2011 Reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A8 29.03.2011 Copy of rejoinder issued by the complainant to the opposite Party
Ex.A9 10.09.2002 General body meeting, notice issued by the opposite party
Ex.A10 Notice issued by opposite party
For opposite party:
Ex.B1 Extract of Byelaw 5,13 and 42[b] of the byelaws of the society
Ex.B2 Resolution of the cancellation of allotment made in favour of Smt. B. Arundhati
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
