Rajasthan High CourtSmt Praveen Kanwar vs R S C T And Ors on 25 November, 2016Author:M.N. BhandariBench:M.N. Bhandari1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
              AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16462/2012
Smt. Praveen Kanwar wife of Shri Ishwar Singh Nathawat,
resident of Plot No. 30, Teeja Nagar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur
                                           ......Petitioner/ Appellant
                          Versus
1. Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal , Jaipur
                                           ....Proforma Respondent
2. Shivdutt Rai Johari (Since deceased) through his legal heirs
2/1 Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Late Shri Shivdutt Rai Johari
2/2 Arun Rai Kaushik
2/3 Amithab Kausahik
2/4 Ashutosh Kaushik
2/5 Avinash Kaushik
All sons of Late Shri Shivdutt Johari
2/6 Smt. Manju Sharma wife of Shri Yogendra Nath Sharma,
d/o Late Shivdutt Rai Johari
2/7 Smt. Nupur Sharma W/o Shri Anil Sharma, d/o Late Shri
Shivdutt Rai Johari
All residents of D-40 , Madho Singh Circle, Banipark, Jaipur
3. Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur
through   its    Administrator   Deputy     Registrar    Cooperative
Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur City, Jaipur
4. Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited ,
Jaipur through Ex. Secretary Gopal Lal Rawat, 41 , Bans
Badanpura, Jaipur
5.   Babulal son of        Benaram Ex. President, Jawaharpuri
Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited , C-6, Parshuram
Ajmer Road, Jaipur
                               ..... Respondents / Non Appellants


                DATE OF ORDER          :   25/11/2016
                                  2

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr. Devendra Sharma, for petitionerBy this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order

dated 17th November, 2007 passed by the Arbitrator and also

the order dated 12th June, 2012 passed by the Rajasthan

Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur.Learned counsel submits that patta was issued by the

cooperative societies in favour of petitioner but it was

challenged by the private respondents. The Arbitrator decided

the issue in favour of private respondents holding that land of

Plot No.10 of Acharya Vinoba Bhave Nagar belongs to the

private respondents, in whose favour patta was issued. The

finding aforesaid was recorded in ignorance of the fact that

patta for the same land was issued in favour of petitioner and it

was prior to issuance of patta in favour of the private

respondents. The private respondents created a receipt of a

sum of Rs.2111/- dated 04.07.1981. The fact aforesaid was

ignored by the Arbitrator and as well as by the Tribunal

because patta in favour of private respondents was issued on

07.07.1982 i.e. subsequent to issuance of patta in favour of

petitioner which in fact was issued on 05.07.1981. In view of

above, impugned orders deserve to be set aside.It is further submitted that even a criminal case was

lodged against the petitioner but therein he has been3acquitted. The allegation for creating forged documents could

not be established thus case of the petitioner is supported even

by the order passed by the court tried the criminal case.It is lastly contended that there is no requirement under

theRajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001and even

repealed Act to contain the signature of both - President and

Secretary of the Cooperative Society, on the patta. The patta

issued in favour of the petitioner was containing signature of

President of the Cooperative Society and it was in compliance

of the requirement of the Act of 2001 and even repealed Act.

The impugned order deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid

ground also.I have considered the submission made by learned

counsel for petitioner and perused the record.Both the orders, impugned herein, contain concurrent

findings of fact. Learned Tribunal had meticulously considered

the issue in reference to claim made by the private

respondents, so as the petitioner. The patta produced by the

petitioner was issued on 05.07.1981 i.e. prior to issuance of

patta in favour of private respondents, which was on

10.07.1982. The receipt towards payment by the private

respondents was issued in the year 1981 i.e. prior to issuance of

patta in favour of the petitioner. The fact aforesaid is relevant

but then patta produced by the petitioner is not containing4signature of both the officers of Cooperative Society, as

signature of Secretary is missing. The aforesaid was taken to be

adverse against petitioner because patta produced by the

private respondents was containing signature of both the

authorities.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no

provision under the Act of 2001 that patta should contain the

signature of both the officers. He was asked to show provision

requires signature of one officer only. He failed to do so. It is

moreso when Coordinate Bench passed an order on 7th

September, 2016 directing learned counsel for petitioner to

come out with the rules on the aforesaid issue. The counsel has

failed to rely on any rule which may show that even if Secretary

of the Society has not signed the patta, it would be valid. It is

even after providing an opportunity to the counsel for

petitioner.Learned Tribunal has further considered the list of the

members of cooperative society. Therein,      it was found that

petitioner was not shown to be one of the member of the

cooperative society so as to allot the plot. The aforesaid fact

also goes against the petitioner thus taking into consideration

aforesaid, the order passed by the Arbitrator was affirmed.The findings of fact of both the authorities are after

consideration of material, I do not find any reason to cause5interference therein while exercising jurisdiction underArticles

226and227of the Constitution of India. It is moreso when

findings recorded cannot even be said to be perverse.The judgment in the case ofSadhna Lodh Vs. National

Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 is

relevant. Para 7 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder

for ready reference:"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
      Courts underArticle 227of the Constitution of India is
      confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal
      has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an
      error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an
      error of law. In exercising the supervisory power underArticle 227of the Constitution, the High Court does not
      act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. It is also not
      permissible to a High Court on a petition filed underArticle 227of the Constitution to review or reweigh the
      evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal
      purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of
      law in the decision."The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.[M.N.BHANDARI], J.FRBOHRA