VELAGACHARLA JAYARAM REDDY & ORS. versus M.VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. ETC

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 11-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1021
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1021
1021
VELAGACHARLA JAYARAM REDDY & ORS.
v.
M.VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11015-11016 of 2017)
JANUARY 11, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 – s.61 –
Plot in question was allotted to defendant no.2, a member of the
N.G.O. society, sale deed registered – Plaintiffs (members-former
office bearers of the N.G.O. society and non-members-plaintiff nos.4
and 5, a couple) raised grievance w.r.t the said allotment alleging
that the plot was reserved as parking area in the layout plan –
Divisional Co-operative Officer passed award in favour of the
plaintiffs – Award affirmed by Co-operative Tribunal – High Court
quashed the award – On appeal, held: Plot in question was not
earmarked as a parking area in the layout plan but was only
deduced so by the Divisional Co-operative Officer – Further, the
person seeking relief from the Court should approach with clean
hands – In the present case, plot allotted to defendant no.2 is located
in front of the shops belonging to plaintiffs no.4 & 5 – They had
earlier requested the NGO Society to allot it in their favour but are
now aggrieved when it is allotted to defendant no.2 – However,
they seek to explain their conduct by stating that they had sought to
purchase the plot and retain it as a parking area –Not acceptable –
Plaintiffs No.4 and 5 apart from being non-members who could not
have invoked the provisions of the APCS Act, were also rival
claimants for allotment of the plot in dispute – Therefore, the
challenge by said plaintiffs to the allotment made in favour of the
defendant and the same cause being supported by the other
plaintiffs, not bonafide – Keeping in perspective the subject matter,
the relief sought and the parties involved, High Court was justified
in its conclusion – Also, present allotment being of the year 2000,
any intervention or action at this juncture will not be justified.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Act has made a provision for members of a
Co-operative Society to approach the co-operative Officer
designated, when there is a dispute amongst the members of a
society or the member/members against the Society etc. [Para
8][1029-A]
2.1 In the instant case, at this stage before this Court,
certain parties have been deleted and the appellant who was a
former President of the Society is alone prosecuting these appeals.
However, what will have to be noted is the frame of the dispute,
the parties to the dispute at the point in time when it was raised
and the context in which it was done. Defendant No.2, a member
of the society who was allotted a plot in another layout formed by
the N.G.O. Society, sought for an exchange of the plot. Accordingly,
the earlier allotted plot was surrendered to the Society by the
defendant No.2. In lieu thereof, the Society allotted the plot
measuring 3.25 cents to defendant No.2 and a sale deed dated
07.04.2000 was also executed and registered. Former office
bearers of the Society who were members of the N.G.O society,
were amongst the plaintiffs. Jayanagar Housing Welfare Society
was a society in the larger layout plan and therefore seeking to
sustain the facilities available in the layout by contending that
the plot allotted to the defendant No.2 was a vacant area reserved
as parking area. Plaintiffs No.4 and 5 were however not the
members of the Society but were purchasers of commercial plots
bearing No. 27, 35, 36 and had constructed shops thereon. The
plot allotted to the defendant No.2 is located in front of the shops
belonging to the plaintiffs No.4 and 5 in plots No.27, 35 and 36.
Though they contend that it is a vacant plot retained in the layout
as parking area and are seeking to espouse a cause, their conduct
needs to be noted. They had earlier requested the NGO Society
to allot the plot in their favour but are presently aggrieved when
it is allotted to another claimant. Plaintiffs No.4 and 5 however
seek to explain their conduct by stating that they had sought to
purchase the plot and retain it as a parking area. Such an
explanation cannot be accepted on face value. If in fact a plot was
earmarked in the layout plan as a parking area, it is the bounden
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1023
duty of the authorities concerned to maintain the same as such.
It is difficult to fathom that a private individual who owns shop
premises in the layout

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.