JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner Lakshmi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, which hereinafter, for convenience sake be referred to as the "defendant Society" seeks to challenge the order Annexure-9 dated 26.5.1992, Annexure-5A order dated 24.2.1992, and also seeks to challenge the order Annexure-2 dated 6.4.1992. The petitioner has also sought direction, to hold that the controversy is not covered by Section 75 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter after referred to as the Act, and a restrain against the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner society, or its members on the land in question, and not to change the status quo. 2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by some of the private respondents, being respondents no. 4 to 9 and 12 and 13. Then, a rejoinder has also been filed. 3. The brief facts, necessary just for grasping the controversy are, that there is a land situated in the city of Jaipur, which land was purchased by some individual persons by registered sale deeds. Different parcels of land were purchased by different persons. May be that some of the land in different sale deeds may be over-lapping, and that has given rise to different controversy, for which a regular revenue suit was filed in the year 1988. According to one version that suit had been dismissed, while according to other version the matter is subjudice. Be that as it may. 4. The present litigation arises out of a claim filed by the present respondent no. 3, Sindhu Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff Society, under Section 75 of the Act, alleging interalia that land described in para no.2 of the plaint belonged to Kalu, Heera, and genealogy was given, and it was pleaded, that the said land was purchased by sale deed dated 7.11.1974 by one Shri V.V. Harit. Then the purchaser sold the land mentioned in para-4 of the plaint by an agreement to the plaintiff society, whereon the society earmarked the plots, and allotted to its members and delivered possession. Thereafter on 30.5.1990, and thereafter, a news item was published in Rajasthan Patrika, that the land has been purchased by Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, and those persons along with the defendant society are in possession of the land. Thereafter on 30.5.1990, and thereafter, a news item was published in Rajasthan Patrika, that the land has been purchased by Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, and those persons along with the defendant society are in possession of the land. It was claimed that the sale in favour of Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar is Farji and made by unauthorised person, and it was pleaded that Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar filed a revenue suit no. 16 of 1988 which was dismissed. Thus, it is clear that the allotment made by the plaintiff Society to its members is in accordance with law, and the defendant society has nothing to do with it. With these averments it was prayed that it be declared that the land actually belongs to the plaintiff Society, and has been allotted by it to its members, and the defendant Society has nothing to do with it. Consequent injunction was also claimed. Copy of this claim is produced in this writ petition as Annexure-3. 5. To this claim a reply was filed by the defendant Society, claiming that the dispute does not fall within the four corners of Section 75 of the Act. Then, it was pleaded that Shri Harit has fraudulently obtained the sale deed, as he happened to be the counsel of Abdullah and Babulal, and that the land is not in possession of the plaintiff Society or its members, rather the land had already been sold to Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, and the news item was rightly got published. It was also contended that this revenue suit filed by Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar is pending litigation in the Board of Revenue. The other allegations of plaintiff Society were denied. In additional pleas it was further contended, that the matter is not covered by Section 75. Then, the details of the sequence of title was pleaded, and that ultimately land was purchased by Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar by registered sale deed dated 12.5.71, and by agreement dated 13.11.79 the land was sold by two persons to the defendant Society. A supplementary agreement was also executed on 27.11.1981, as 5700 sq. yards of land had been washed away in "Nala". Various other pleadings were taken, and it was contended, that the claim be dismissed, being not maintainable as well. 6. A supplementary agreement was also executed on 27.11.1981, as 5700 sq. yards of land had been washed away in "Nala". Various other pleadings were taken, and it was contended, that the claim be dismissed, being not maintainable as well. 6. The learned Arbitrator passed the award on 24.2.1992, Annexure-5A, holding that the real owner of the land is plaintiff Society, and defendant Society has nothing to do with the land, and thus injunction was granted. Against this award an appeal was filed on 11.5.1992, raising various objections, including that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction, as the matter does not fall within the four corners of Section 75 of the Act. The plaintiff Society is under Administrator, who could not file claim without permission of the Registrar. Then, various other objections have been raised on merits also. The Appellate Tribunal vide judgment Annexure-9 dated 26.5.1992, dismissed the appeal as barred by time. It was found that since the dates were being fixed, and the defendant Society had entered appearance, it shall be deemed that the Society had notice of the award, on the date on which it has been passed, being on 24.2.1992, and appeal should have been filed within 60 days. It was also held that if the appellant wanted to claim any other period of limitation, an application in that regard should have been filed, or application for condonation of delay, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been filed, which has not been done. Thus the appeal was dismissed as time barred. 7. Arguing the writ, it was contended, firstly, that by virtue of Rule 107 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, the limitation is required to be computed from the date the copy of the award was served on the petitioner, and if that is done the appeal is clearly within limitation. Other submission made is, that in any case since the controversy involved, and adjudicated vide Annexure-5A, does not fall within Section 75 of the Act the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction, and are required to be quashed on that ground alone. Other submission made is, that in any case since the controversy involved, and adjudicated vide Annexure-5A, does not fall within Section 75 of the Act the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction, and are required to be quashed on that ground alone. Reliance in this regard was placed on various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Sugauli Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Motihari & Ors., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1367 , Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors., reported in AIR 1969 SC 1320 , Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & Ors., reported in AIR 1970 SC 245 , The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad & Anr., reported in AIR 1979 SC 1203 , U.P. Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd & Anr. v. Liladhar & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 152 , and The Allahabad Dist. Co-op. Ltd. v. Hanuman Dutt Tewari, reported in AIR 1982 SC 120 , and one Single Bench judgment of Bombay High Court, in Lokmitra Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Yojna Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., reported in 1991 Co-op. C. 455 . Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Liquidator, Shri Bhopal Cooperative Society v. Legal Representative of Bhagwan & Ors., reported in 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 600 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. Singhvi appearing for respondents no. 12 and 14 raised certain preliminary objections. It was contended that even if the award Annexure-5A was nullity since the petitioner filed an appeal, and thereby availed alternative remedy, since the appeal has been dismissed as time barred, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present writ on the ground of matter being not covered by Section 75. It was also contended that in Annexure-4 the petitioner had raised this objection in the reply, that the matter does not fall within Section 75, but then in trial it is not substantiated, and therefore, the award Annexure-5A was passed, and he did not file appeal within time, nor did he seek condonation of delay, and therefore, writ should not be entertained. The other submission raised on the basis of ground (1) and para-8 of the writ petition viz. The other submission raised on the basis of ground (1) and para-8 of the writ petition viz. that therein the petitioner has chosen to level bald and wild allegations against the Arbitrator, and even the Appellate Tribunal, so much so that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has been attempted to be maligned by contending, that the order has been passed under pressure of respondents no. 4 to 9 all of whom are prominent advocates practicing at Jaipur, and that about 18 advocates are involved in the present case, who are alleged plot holders either themselves or through their close relatives, including one who is steno of Presiding Officer of Shri Amar Singh Godara. According to learned counsel this obviously means, that the petitioner seeks to contend, that the order Annexure-9 has been passed under pressure of respondents no. 4 to 9, and steno of the Presiding Officer had played an important role in passing the judgment, while there is nothing to substantiate this contention, and on account of this conduct of the petitioner itself, the petition is liable to be thrown out. Then, learned counsel referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the present petitioner being Annexure-7, contending that even according to the deponent he was aware about proceedings of 13.1.1992, and it is not the case in the affidavit, or in the grounds of appeal, that the deponent of Annexure-7 did not inform the society, or on account of that the society did not get sufficient opportunity to contest. Then, supporting the order Annexure-9 on merits, it was contended, that may be that in the memo of appeal it has been pleaded that the award was received by them on 11.3.1992, but then there is nothing to point out that the appellant did not come to know of the award earlier, and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal. Then, attention was invited to the findings recorded by the Arbitrator in the award Annexure- 5A at page-5, wherein the question as to whether the matter is covered by Section 75 or not was decided by the Arbitrator, and in view of the judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2455/94 decided on 13.7.2005, M/s. Ashoka Palace's case the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to decide the question, and therefore, he has decided it, and since the appeal has not been filed in time it is not open to the petitioner to challenge that in this writ petition. Then, about applicability of Section 75 it was contended, that in order to decide the question as to whether the plaintiff Society could allot plot to its members or not it is to be decided as to whether land belong to the Society or not, and therefore, the question about title to the land does squarely fall within Section 75, as the defendant Society also claims the title to the land, as the plaintiff Society. Then, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 244 , Electrical Cable Development Association v. Arun Commercial Premises Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1998)5 SCC 396 , and Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1999)3 SCC 296 were relied upon to support the contention. 9. In rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reply to the writ has been filed by the respondent no. 3, the plaintiff Society, therefore, these contentions advanced by Mr. Singhvi cannot be entertained. Then, it was contended that all said and done, the litigation is basically title suit, and earlier owners have not come forward, and the Society i.e. the plaintiff Society and the defendant Society did not have any sale deeds, having been executed in accordance with law in favour of either of them. 10. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the documents available on the file of this writ petition. 11. 10. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the documents available on the file of this writ petition. 11. After hearing the learned counsel at this great length, and on going to the real controversy involved in the present matter also, I am surprised that the litigation is going on between the parties for the last around 26 years, without any basis, inasmuch as according to the two societies, the land was purchased by Shri V.V. Harit, or by Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, as per the respective stand of respective Society, by registered sale deeds. Thus to that extent the two sets of purchasers might have become the owners, and consequent upon decision of the respective claims. However, admittedly, none of the society has been conveyed title in the land, by any lawful document. Both the societies have claimed to have purchased the land from respective purchasers by an agreement, and all the agreements are admittedly unregistered, and the property covered thereby is admittedly worth more than Rs. 100/-. Admittedly none of the Societies have even filed any suit for specific performance of the respective agreement, and ought we know, by now the limitation for the suit may have run out, and the requirements of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act are also not shown to have been fulfilled. May be, that this aspect was not raised at any point of time, and has not been gone into by the Arbitrator, and the Appellate Forum, but then deciding this litigation either ways, within the framework of the contentions of the learned counsel, would obviously result into indirectly recognising the title of either of the societies in the land in question, while none of the society does have any legal title. 12. In the revenue suit filed by Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, the other purchasers Shri Harit and the two societies are also parties, and as a matter of fact there is a dispute about the title between the two sets of purchasers, being Devendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar and Shri Harit, and that litigation is already said to be pending in the competent Revenue Court. In such circumstances, to say the least, neither of the societies had any right to lay any claim on the land, much less to allot the land to any of its members. 13. In such circumstances, to say the least, neither of the societies had any right to lay any claim on the land, much less to allot the land to any of its members. 13. Until and unless either of the two, or both, the societies do get the title over the land, in accordance with law, there can possibly be no occasion for the societies to allot land to anybody, and thereby act contrary to law, apart from depriving the State of the huge revenue of the Stamp Duty leviable, in the event of valid sale being effected by the land owners to the respective societies. 14. In view of the above factual position, which appears to be not disputed, in view of the material available on the file, I do not stand advised to go into the merits of the award Annexure-5A, or Appellate order Annexure-9, and simply direct, that there was no occasion for even initiating this litigation, as until and unless title in the land vested, or could be lawfully claimed by either of the society, there was no occasion for initiating the litigation. 15. Accordingly, without going into the legal controversy raised, the writ petition is disposed of, holding that neither the petitioner, nor the respondent no. 3, Society has any lawful title in the land, and obviously, and consequently, they have no business to make any allotment of land to anyone. Both the societies, therefore, are also restrained from making any such allotment, until and unless they acquire lawful title by a legal document, from the respective land owners. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.Writ Petition disposed of as above. *******