ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. Writ Petition by a person who claims to be the member of second respondent Co-operative Society Limited who is aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No.670/2004 in terms of order dated 13-11-2007 allowing appeal at the instance of the third respondent another member of the very society and in the context of the Tribunal having allowed the appeal of the third respondent against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Act to get over the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 30-4-2004 in No. JRB/MD/138/1999-2000. The entire controversy being in context of allotment of a site bearing NO.A-1893 measuring 60 x 40 that the society having executed one sale deed dated 19-1-1996 registered on 20-1-1996 in respect of the very site in favour of third respondent and later the very society having executed another sale deed dated 15-5-1996, in respect which writ petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of the very site registered on 19-7-1997. 2. The second respondent society not acting not acting in favour of the third respondent pursuant to the execution of the sale deed dated 19-1-1996 in favour of third respondent, the third respondent had approached the Deputy Registrar raising a distpute after his efforts to get the documents and possession certificate of the site before the society failed and it is such dispute that the Deputy Registrar of Societis not only dismissed his dispute in terms of the order dated 30-4-2004 but also directed the society to register an alternative site in favour of the third respondent who was the applicant before the Registrar. 3. For such purposes the Deputy Registrar had perused the Docments placed by the society before him. Such as records from the office of the records including the register extracts of the accounts in favour of the members and sale deeds executed in favour of the parties and such other documents. 4. 3. For such purposes the Deputy Registrar had perused the Docments placed by the society before him. Such as records from the office of the records including the register extracts of the accounts in favour of the members and sale deeds executed in favour of the parties and such other documents. 4. The Tribunal in the appeal filed by the third respondent before it found that site No.A1893 had been allotted in favour of the appellant before it i.e., present third respondent in this writ petition, whereas a site bearing No.A1900 had been allotted in favour of the writ petitioner Veeranna (it appears to have been subsequently scored of and instead written the numbe 1893) and the said allotment of site No.1900 was in favour of the writ petitioner on 5-3-1995/22-3-1995 that while respect of site No. A 1893 sale deed has in fact been executed by the society earlier in favour of the appellant before it i.e., present writ petitioner. Subsequent sale deed dated 15-5-1996 though his claim is in respect of the same site is one after scoring off the number 1900 and writing 1893. 5. The Tribunal on examinig the defence of the society that the allotment in favour of the appellant before it was by over sight; that the appellant did not have any right to claim any allotment particularly for the reason that there was no deposit to the credit of appellants account towards the sital value between 6-12-1995 and 2312-1995 on the premise that during the relevant period, the appellant himself had requested the society to transfer this amount to the credit of the account of another member by name Achutha. 6. While the tribunal disbelieving this version of the society also declined to permit the society to place additional evidence to this effect towards the end of the hearing of the appeal and rejected the.l.A for the same. Examining the legal posoon also found that the societ which had already registered the site in favour of the appellant before it, could not have either conveyed the very site yet again another site in favour of present writ petitioner subsequent to 15-5-1996 nor had competence to cancel the sale deed in its favour. Examining the legal posoon also found that the societ which had already registered the site in favour of the appellant before it, could not have either conveyed the very site yet again another site in favour of present writ petitioner subsequent to 15-5-1996 nor had competence to cancel the sale deed in its favour. Therefore allowed the dispute raised by the appellant before the Deputy Registrar declaring the appellant to be the owner of the site on the strength of the sale deed that had been executed by the society in favour of the appellant and directed the society to take steps to cancel the subsequent sale deed dated 15-51996 which had been executed in favour of the present writ petitioner. A further direction is issued to the society to issue sale deed and put the appellant first member in whose favour the site had already been transferred, in possession with no objection certificate in his favour etc., within a period of one week. It is this order which has been questioned by the writ petitioner who is figured as second respondent before the Tribunal. 7. After issue of notice to the respondents in the writ petition, the second respondent society is represented by Counsel Sri. Chandrasehkaiah, the third respondent appellant befor the Tribunal is represented by Basareddy. Both of them have filed statement of objections. 8. In the statement of objection filed on behalf of the second respondent society, the society has fully supported the cause and case of the petitioner and it has also filed good numbe of documents at Annexures-R-1 to R-7 in support of the statement of objectins particularly to make good their case on the transfer of the funds in the name of third respondent to the name of one B.M. Achutha and the ledger extract accounts of the petitioner as well as the third respondent, copy of the allotment letter dated 4-1-1996 in favour of third respondent Annexure R-7 etc. 9. I have heard Sri.K.M. Nataraj learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Mallikarjuna appearing for third respondent and the society being represented by M/s Chandrashekaraiah and Sri. Tharesh. 10. 9. I have heard Sri.K.M. Nataraj learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Mallikarjuna appearing for third respondent and the society being represented by M/s Chandrashekaraiah and Sri. Tharesh. 10. Submission .of Sri K M. Nataraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while drawing attention to the Annexure-H, a copy of the letter said to have been written by the third respondent to the societ requesting the society to transfer the site deposit amount at the credit of his account to the account of one friend one B. M. Achutha, contending that the third respondent had no right to claim allotment of a site, as in terms of his letter he lost such a right; Annexure-J, a copy of the communication dated 6-12-1995, said to have been issued by the society as a follow-up action on such request; Annexure-K, a ledger extract of the site deposit amount of the third respondent, _which is claimed to have been transferred . to the said Achyutha by striking off the name of Venukumar and writing the name of Achyutha and accepted a sum of Rs 24,500/- as on 6-12-1995; and Annexure-L, said to be the new ledger extract account of third respondent who is claimed to have made depost of Rs 64,500/- on 23-12-1995 and a further sum of Rs 62,000/- received on 8-1-1996, to submit that between 6-12-1995 and 23-12-1995, there was no amount in deposit to the credit of the account the third respondent; that registration of the site in favour of third respondent as well as the earlier allotment are both by mistake and not intended and therefore if the society had taken corrective measures by not acting upon the allotment or registration in favour of the third respondent, no fault can be find with such an action and that the deputy registrar of cooperative societies was justified in dismissing the dispute raised by the third respondent, the appellate tribunal has unnecessarily interfered with this order os the deputy registrar and the matter warrants interference and set aside the order of the tribunal and restore the order of the deputy registrar. 11. 11. Attention is also drawn to the fact that whereas the petitioner had been allotted as site even as pe the communication dated 22-3-1995, pursuant to draw of lots held on 5-3-1995, the third respondent having failed even the initial deposit and the balance amount of the site value only on 23-12-1995 and 8-1-1996, the allotment as well as the acceptance of the amount is not valid and therefore the order of the tribunal is to be set aside etc. 12. Sri A.N. Tharesha, learned Counsel for the second respondent-society, has made submissions in the light of the statement of objections and supporing the versions of the petitioner. 13. 12. Sri A.N. Tharesha, learned Counsel for the second respondent-society, has made submissions in the light of the statement of objections and supporing the versions of the petitioner. 13. Sri Mallikarjuna S. Basareddy, learned Counsel for the third respondent, has submitted that the society has acted in a fraudulent way in going back on both its actions in allotment in favour of third respondent and also the registration of the subject site i.e. site bearing No. A-1893 and have acted in collusion with the writ petitione by not only manipulating the records to project as though the allotment of site in favour of the petitioner was A1893 by record of allotment and the allotment letter etc., to show that the allotment of site was 1850; that even as per the record as had been placed by the society before the deputy registrar did indicate this position, but the very records when were placed before tribunal for the purpose of defending the order passed by the deputy registrar in favour of the writ petitioner, even the original records including the public document like the sale deed registred in favour of the third respondent has been manipulated by the society; that in the description of the site number in the original sale deed, alternations have been made; that even in the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner, which admittedly is a sale deed subsequent in point of time to the sale deed executed by the society in favour of third respondent, the site number has been changed from the original site number 1850 to the number of the site which had been allotted and registered in favour of third respondent i.e. site No. A1893; that a copy of the registered sale deed that has been executed in favour of the petitioner dated 15-5-1996 [AnnexureR6 to the statement of objection filed by the third respondent], is a testimony of the manipulation indulged in by the society, as in this sale deed in the second paragraph of the recitals in the sale deed, site number of the .site allotted in favour of the petitioner has been mentioned only as site No 1850 and this was a document which had been produced before the deputy registrar and has been marked as an exhibit, whereas in the very sale deed, when was produced before the tribunal, a copy of which is produced at AnnexureR-9 to the statement of objections, which is also the copy produced by the petitioner as Annexure-D to the writ petition, the site number is mentioned as A-1893, which betrays the manipulation indulged in by the society only to favour the writ petitioner; that while such a conduct on the part of the society clerarly amounting to committing perjury and meddling with the public documents placed before the judicial authority only to mislead the tribunal and to the detriment of the third respondent, the writ petition based on such premises is one without merit and the writ petition also lacks bona fides; that the writ petition should be dismissed with costs. 14. While Sri Nataraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the legal position that follows the registration of the site in favour of the third respondent as per the sale deed dated 19-1-1996, with the sale deed executed in favour of the third respondent, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner claiming to be for the very site being later on 15-5-1996 and therefore if the property in the said site namely site No A-1893 measuring 60x40 had already been conveyed in favour of the third respondent, the petitioner does not get any right in law.Submission is that such an earler transfer being by mistake on the part of the society, that mistake should not be to the disadvantage of the writ petitioner and to the advantage of the third respondent and therefore would-urge that notwithstanding the legal position, the order passed by the tribunal warrants interference etc. 15. The order passed by the tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or on law. In fact, on examination of the order along with the pleadings and the documents as placed before this Court by the writ petitioner, the society and the third respondent, only indicates that there is something radically wrong with the affairs of the society. Whether the writ petitioner was a party to such manipulative and overreaching action on the part of the society, the writ petitioner cannot claim any benefit from such illegal acts on the part of the society to sustain any benefit. 16. In fact, the manner in which the petition is presented and the strong reliance is placed on the manipulation indulged in by the society to calim relief in the writ petition suggesting that the society having acted in such a manner only for the benefit of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner may be a party to such manipulative conduct on the part of the society. 17. Be that as it may, I find that the writ petition is wholly without merit and also lacking in bona fides. 17. Be that as it may, I find that the writ petition is wholly without merit and also lacking in bona fides. The society though had offered that it is ready and willing to provide an alternative site in favour of the third respondent to sustain the order of the tribunal, such a course of action could be in favour of the writ petitioner than to submit that it can be done in favour of third respondent, as such the offer cannot change the legal position and the property that has already been transferred in favour of the third respondent does not revert only because of such offer, but more importantly the third respondent is not ready or willing to accept such an offer of the society and has contended that the society has indulged in such misconduct and to the disadvantage of many members. 18. Both the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the third respondent are in agreement that the affairs of the society require diligent probe by a competent authority under the Act and for rectification of the mistakes, manipulations and fraud etc. 19. In the circumstance, while this writ petition is dismissed, the tribunal is directed to examine the possibility of second respondent society having committed perjury or having sought to place manipulated or distorted documents before the tribunal and also as to whether the society had tried to create false evidence before the tribunal, particularly with reference to the evidence it had already placed before the deputy registrar of cooperative societies in the dispute raised by the third respondent. The tribunal to initiate appropariate action against the office bearer of the society under the appropriate provisions of penal code and the code of criminal procedure, if any such action warrants initation of such proceedings and by filing a criminal f complaint in this regard before the jurisdictional magistrate. 20. The tribunal to initiate appropariate action against the office bearer of the society under the appropriate provisions of penal code and the code of criminal procedure, if any such action warrants initation of such proceedings and by filing a criminal f complaint in this regard before the jurisdictional magistrate. 20. Apart from this, the registrar of cooperative societies in Karnataka, on whose behalf the first respondent has acted, is hereby directed to hold a detailed enquiry into the affairs of the society, particularly in the matter of allotment of sites in favour of its members, manner in which amounts collected and the manner in which such sites have been allotted in favour of members and if any manipulations of the records of the society in respect of such allotment of sites and to enwure that proper remedial measures are taken under the provisios of the Act by issue of a notice to such pesons and by identifying the responsible and builty persons for action. 21. The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka. 22. Writ petition is dismissed levying cost of Rs 5,000/- [Ruppes five thousand only] on the petitioner payable to the third respondent. The cost to be paid within four weeks from today to the third respondent or to be deposited within that time before this Court, failing which the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the third respondent in this regard enabling the third respondent to recover the cost as if a decree of the civil Court. It is for the society to ensure compliance with the order passed by the tribunal, which is affirmed herein.