RAJIV ROY, J.:–The two appeals, LPA No. 1486 of 2016 and LPA No. 1489 of 2016 have been preferred by the sole appellantpetitioner challenging the common order dated 24.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3277 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 12255 of 2007 respectively by which the orders dated 17.7.2007/23.7.2007 passed by respondent no.2, the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the Registrar’) as also the order dated 19.11.2008/20.11.2008 passed by the respondent no.5, the District Cooperative Officer, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the Cooperative Officer’) and the order dated 23.01.2009 passed by the respondent no.6, Additional Collector, Law and Order, Patna were not interfered with and the writ petitions preferred by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed with further direction to the concerned authorities to return the amount deposited by her within a period of three months failing which she shall be entitled to bank interest. 2. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present appeal is/are as follows:— 3. The matter relates to plot no. 252 in Patliputra Housing Construction Society Limited, Patna (henceforth the short ‘the Society’) allotted in favour of the late R.N. Pandey on 13.5.1965. 4. R. N. Pandey expired the same year and accordingly his wife, Raj Muni Devi was inducted as a Member of 'the Society' on 3.10.1966 but unfortunately she also died in the month of November, 1966. 5. 'The Society' thereafter transferred the membership of the aforesaid plot in favour of G.S. Pande, father of the present respondent nos. 7 to 9. 6. The said G.S. Pande submitted application for the registration of sale deed in his favour on 8.3.1989 which was registered by 'the Society' on 14.3.1989. 7. The issue arose on 26.5.1990 when the deed of annulment was executed by 'the Society' through its Honorary Secretary with regard to the said plot. Accordingly, the Board of 'the said Society' passed a resolution on 24.7.1990 cancelling the allotment made in favour of G.S. Pande. 8. This cancellation of the allotment was challenged by G.S. Pande vide Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 1996 before the respondent Registrar, Cooperative Societies and on 3.7.1996, an order of status quo was passed. Despite the said order of status-quo, 'the Society' proceeded to allot a portion of the plot no. 252 (252/A) in favour of the appellant-petitioner on 09.07.1996. 9. This cancellation of the allotment was challenged by G.S. Pande vide Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 1996 before the respondent Registrar, Cooperative Societies and on 3.7.1996, an order of status quo was passed. Despite the said order of status-quo, 'the Society' proceeded to allot a portion of the plot no. 252 (252/A) in favour of the appellant-petitioner on 09.07.1996. 9. The Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 1996 came to be dismissed on 29.6.1990. Aggrieved, C.W.J.C. No. 6621 of 1998 was filed by G.S. Pande in July, 1998. In the meantime, the remaining portion of plot no. 252 (252/B) was also alloted to the appellant-petitioner on 23.8.1998. 10. G.S. Pande sought interim order from Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6621 of 1998 and accordingly an order of status-quo was passed on 24.8.1998. 11. The writ petition was finally allowed on 25.4.2000 and Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 1996 was remanded to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration. 12. The Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 1996 was thereafter taken up by the Registrar, Cooperative Society and was dismissed again on 28.11.2000. Aggrieved, another writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 4593 of 2001 was preferred by G.S. Pande in 2001. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, he died and was substituted by the present respondent nos. 7 to 9. 13. C.W.J.C. No. 4593 of 2001 was allowed on 3.4.2007 and the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society on 28.11.2000 was set aside and the matter was once again remanded for fresh consideration. 14. The respondent Registrar, Cooperative Society thereafter took up the Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 1996 and vide an order dated 17.7.2007/23.7.2007 allowed the same which read as follows:— ^^U;k;ky;] fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡] fcgkj] iVukA fofoèk okn la[;k 186@1996 Jherh Lokfr ik.Ms; ,oa vU; cuke ikVfyiq=k dks&vkWijsfVo gkml dUlVªlu lkslkbVh fyñ ,oa vU;A fnukad vkns'k As directed by Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 4593/01 Smt Swati Pande and others Vs. The Registrar, C.S., Bihar, Patna and others) 27-04-07@30-04-07 ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lhñMCyqñtsñlhñ la[;k&4593@01 esa fnukad 15@03-4-07 dks ikfjr vkns'k }kjk fofoèk okn la[;k&186@96 esa fnukad 28-11-00 dks U;k;ky; fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡] fcgkj] iVuk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fujLr dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk bl U;k;ky; esa nksuksa i{kksa dks mfpr volj iznku djrs gq, rhu ekg ds vUnj ekeyk fofèkor~ fu"iknu gsrq fjek.M fd;k x;k gSA rnqulkj mDr lanHkZ esa ekeys dh lquokbZ gsrq vxyh frfFk 14-5-07 fuèkkZfjr dh tkrh gSA lacafèkr i{kksa dks lwfpr djsaA gñ@& fucaèkd] lñlñ 14-5-07 Hkze.k esa jgus ds dkj.k dk;Z ugha gks ldkA vkosnd ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk }kjk gkftjh nh xbZA f}rh; i{k dks fucafèkr Mkd ls lwpuk fuxZr djsaA bldk [kpZ vkosnd ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk }kjk ogu fd;k tk,xkA lquokbZ dh vxyh frfFk 04-06-07 fuèkkZfjr dh tkrh gS gñ@& fucaèkd] lñlñ 04-06-07 vkosnd ,oa izfroknh la[;k 1 ,oa 2 fo}ku vfèkoDrk mifLFkr gSA f}rh; i{k ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk }kjk odkyrukek nkf[ky fd;k x;kA f}rh; i{k dk dguk gS fd bl okn ls lEcfUèkr ekeyk iVuk mPp U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS vkSj rRdky iVuk mPp U;k;ky; xzh"ekodk'k esa can gSa blfy, le; dh ekax djrs gSaA f}rh; i{k ds vuqjksèk dks Lohdkj djrs gq, ekeys dh lquokbZ gsrq fnukad 09-07-07 dh frfFk fuèkkZfjr dh tkrh gSA gñ@& fucaèkd 16-06-07 izFke i{k ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk dks lqukA f}rh; i{k ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk us ;g dgrs gq, fd vkt os cgl gsrq rS;kj gksdj ugha vk, gS] le; dh ek¡x dh gSA okn dh lquokbZ gsrq dy fnukad 17-7-07 djs vfHkys[k miLFkkfir djsaA g@& fucaèkd] lñlñ 17-07-07 mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk mifLFkrA mHk; i{kksa dks vius fyf[kr rdZ fnukad 20-07-07 rd lefiZr djus dk funs'k fn;k tkrk gSA vkns'k gsrq fnukad 23-07-07 dks j[ksaA g@& fucaèkd] lñlñ 17-07-07 23-07-07 okn dh lquokbZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds lhMCY;wtslh 4593@2001 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-04-07 ds vkyksd esa dh xbZA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fofoèk okn la[;k 186@1996 esa fnukad 28-11-2000 dks ikfjr vkns'k dks fujLr djrs gq, mDr okn dks iqu% bl U;k;ky; esa nksuksa i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk volj iznku djrs gq, ekeys ij u, fljs ls fofèklEer vkns'k ikfjr djus dk funs'k fn;k x;k gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funs'k ds vkyksd esa mHk; i{kksa dks fofèkor~ lwpuk nsus ds i'pkr lquokbZ dh xbZA izFke i{k ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk }kjk fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr djrs gq, lk{; ds :i esa 23 izdkj ds dkxtkr izLrqr fd, x,] ftls ,uDlj 1-23 ds #i esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA f}rh; i{k ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk iwoZ esa nks ckj le; fn, tkus ds ckn Hkh viuk i{k izLrqr ugha dj lds vkSj u gh budh vksj ls lk{; ds :i esa dksbZ dkxtkr lefiZr fd;k x;k gSA iwoZ esa buds }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa ,yih, nk;j gksus lEcUèkh ckr dgh xbZ Fkh rFkk ,d ekg dk le; ek¡xk x;k FkkA le; gsrq vkosnu Lohd`r djus ds i'pkr f}rh; i{k dh lgefr ds vkèkkj ij iqu% frfFk r; dh xbZA blds ckotwn Hkh f}rh; i{k }kjk iqu% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa ,yih, nk;j gksus lEcUèkh rdZ nsrs gq, le; dh ek¡x dh xbZA pw¡fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k izkfIr ds rhu ekg ds vUnj okn dh lquokbZ ds i'pkr bls fu"ikfnr djus dk funs'k gS] blfy, f}rh; i{k ds fnukad 9 vxLr] 2007 ds ckn lquokbZ gsrq le; nsus lEcUèkh vkosnu dks vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk iwoZ ls vfHkys[k esa layXu buds dkxtkrksa ds vkèkkj ij fu.kZ; fn;k tk jgk gSA bl okn esa ewy vkosnd LoxhZ; xkSjh'kadj ik.Ms; gSa] ftudh e`R;q ds i'pkr mudh rhuksa iqf=;ksa dks izFke i{k cuk;k x;k gSA buds }kjk ikVfyiq=k dks&vkWijsfVo gkÅl dULVªD'ku lkslkbVh fyñ ds funs'kd i"kZn ¼cksMZ½ dk izLrko la[;k&9 fnukad 24-07-90 dks fujLr djus djus gsrq vuqjksèk fd;k x;k gSA funs'kd i"kZn ¼cksMZ½ }kjk mDr izLrko ikfjr dj vkosfndkvksa ds LoxhZ; firk ds uke ij vkoafVr ,oa foØ; i= ls izkIr IYkkV 252 dks fujLr djrs gq, izfroknh la[;k&2 dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA la{ksi esa vkosfndkvksa dk nkok gS fd IYkkV 252 fnukad 13-05-65 dks lfefr }kjk LoxhZ; vkj-,u- ik.Ms; dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k FkkA mudh e`R;q ds i'pkr bl Hkw[k.M dks LoxhZ; ik.Ms; dh iRuh dks gLrkarfjr fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr o"kZ 1978 esa lfefr ds funs'kd i"kZn ds izLrko la[;k&10 fnukad 08-01-78 }kjk bl fookfnr Hkw[k.M dk vkoaVu LoxhZ; xkSjh'kadj ik.Ms; dks fd;k x;kA o"kZ 1979 esa vkosnd dh vksj ls lfefr dks ¼fcfYMx dUlVªD'ku IYkku½ Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu fn;k x;k Fkk] ftls lqèkkj dj iqu% 18-12-80 dks lefiZr fd;k x;kA vkosfndkvksa ds vuqlkj lfefr dh Lohd`fr cgqr fnukas rd izkIr ugha gksus ds dkj.k Lohd`fr dh izR;k'kk esa fookfnr Hkw[k.M ij ,oa vU; fuekZ.k dk;Z fd, x, FksA vkosfndkvksa dk ;g Hkh nkok gS rkfd buds dks lfefr }kjk Lohd`fr nsus lEcUèkh lwpuk o"kZ 1996 esa bl U;k;ky; esa okn nk;j gksus ds i'pkr~ izkIr gqbZ] tcfd Lohd`fr dh izR;k'kk esa cgqr iwoZ gh vkosnd }kjk fuekZ.k&dkZ djk;k x;k FkkA p¡wfd fookfnr IykWV lfefr }kjk vfèkx`fgr Hkw[k.M ds fdukjs vofLFkr gS] blfy, bl ij vlekftd rRoksa }kjk xyr buds foijhr çfroknhx.k dk dguk gS fd lfefr }kjk vkosnd Jh xkSjh'kadj ik.Ms; dks IykV 252 bl 'kÙkZ ij vkoafVr fd;k x;k Fkk fd os ,d o"kZ ds vUnj bl ij viuk edku lfefr dh mi&fofèk;ksa ds vuq:i [kM+k dj ysaxs ysfdu ckj&ckj lwpuk fn, tkus ds ckotwn Hkh Jh ik.Ms }kjk fdlh çdkj dk fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djus ij budk vkoaVu jn~n djrs gq,] buds i{k esa xyr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds çklafxd vkns'k ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd çfroknh lfefr }kjk vkosnd ds IykWV ds vkoaVu dks o"kZ 1990 esa jn~n fd;k x;k gS tcfd lfefr ds çcUèkd }kjk fofèkor~ fucafèkr foØ; vfHkys[k }kjk IykWV dk fucaèku o"kZ 1989 esa gh fu"ikfnr fd;k tk pqdk gSA vkosnd dks fuekZ.k&lEcUèkh plan ds l'kÙkZ vuqeksnu dh tkudkjh Hkh o"kZ 1996 esa nh xbZ tc muds }kjk fofoèk okn la[;k 186@1996 fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡ ds le{k nk;j fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa lfefr dh mifofèk la[;k 35 ,oa 35¼)½ dk mYys[k djrs gq, ;g ekuk x;k gS fd lfefr ds çcUèkd }kjk vkosnd dks fucafèkr foØ; foys[k }kjk IykWV dk fucaèku oSèk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns'k es ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foØ; foys[k ds fu"iknu ds mijkUr vkosnd ds IykWV ds vkoaVu dks jn~n djuk fofèklEer ugha gS D;ksafd vc ;g mDr IykWV ij vkosnd dk vfèkdkj rFkk LokfeRo gS ftls O;ogkj U;k;ky; }kjk gh l{ke izkfèkdkj ds rgr lquokbZ dj fu"ikfnr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns'k esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fcgkj lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vfèkfu;e] 1935 dh èkkjk&48 ds rgr lfefr ds nks i{kksa ds chp fookn dks bl lhek rd foLrkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd mlds }kjk IykWV ij vfèkdkj ,oa LokfeRo lEcUèkh ekeys dks Hkh fuiVk;k tk ldsA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk bl okn ds çfroknh la[;k&2 dks vkoafVr Hkw[k.M ds vkoaVu dks Hkh fofèklEer ugha ik;k x;k gSA vkosfndkvksa }kjk dh xbZ izkFkZuk] izLrqr fd, x, dkxtkrksa ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vyksd esa ;g Li"V gS fd ikVfyiq=k dks&vkWisfjVo gkÅl dULVªD'ku lkslkbVh fyñ] iVuk }kjk vkosnd dks vkoafVr ,oa foØ; foys[k }kjk iwoZ esa gh fucafèkr IykWV ds vkoaVu dks fnukad 24-07-90 ds funs'kd i"kZn dh cSBd esa jn~n fd;k tkuk oSèk ugha gSA lfefr ds izcUèku }kjk vkosnd dks iwoZ esa fd, x, IykWV la[;k 252 ds vkoaVu ,oa fucaèku dks jn~n djus lEcUèkh fu.kZ; fnukad 24-07-1990 dks voSèk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k fuxZr djsaA mDr vkns'k ds lkFk bl okn dks fu"ikfnr fd;k tkrk gSA g@& fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡A Kkid----148@vkj ,y---@& iVuk] fnukad 24-07-07 izfrfyfi & 1- Jherh Lokfr ik.Ms;] iq=h xkSjh 'kadj ik.Ms;] iRuh&estj izse flag] 111 ikVfyiq=k dkWyksuh] iVukA 2- Jherh vfUork izèkku] iq=h Loñ xkSjh 'kadj ik.Ms;] iRuh&Mkñ vthr izèkku] 111 ikVyhiq=k dkWykuh] iVukA 3- Jherh ;kfedk ,uñ ik.Ms;] iq=h Loñ xkSjh 'kadj ik.Ms;] iRuh&Jh ,pñ vuar ukjk;.k] ,&103 ghjk uUnuh ,LvsV] xksMcMZj jksM] ikVfyikM+k] Bk.ks ¼if'pe½ eqEcbZA 4- ikVfyiq=k dks&vkWijsfVo gkml dULVªD'ku lkslkbVh fyñ] iVuk }kjk voSrfud lfpo 5- Jherh dqeqn pkSèkjh] Hkkñiqñlsñ] iRuh Jh ,lñ dsñ pkSèkjh] vij vkj{kh egkfuns'kd ¼tsy½] jkèkk jkuh dksBh] usiky gkml ds lehi] Mksj.Mk jk¡phA g@& mi fucaèkd] lñlñ fcgkj] iVukA** 15. Accordingly, the allotment of the aforesaid plot no. 252 made in favour of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled and the same was restored to the legal heirs of late G.S. Pande on 27.8.2007 with further direction to return the deposited amount to the appellant-petitioner. 16. This was challenged by the appellantpetitioner herein by filing CWJC No. 12255 of 2007. 17. On 19.11.2008/20.11.2008 the respondent no.5, the District Cooperative Officer, Patna passed an order for grant of possession of Plot No. 252 to the respondent Nos 5 to 7. 16. This was challenged by the appellantpetitioner herein by filing CWJC No. 12255 of 2007. 17. On 19.11.2008/20.11.2008 the respondent no.5, the District Cooperative Officer, Patna passed an order for grant of possession of Plot No. 252 to the respondent Nos 5 to 7. The order as contained at Annexure-1 of the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:— ^^U;k;ky; ftyk lgdkfjrk inkfèkdkjh] iVuk fofoèk okn la- 13@2008 Jherh vuohrk izèkku] lnL;] ikVfyiq=k lgdkjh x`g fuekZ.k lfefr fyñ cuke 1- lfpo] ikVfyiq=k lgdkjh x`g fuekZ.k lfefr fyñ 2- Jherh dqeqn pkSèkjh] Hkkjrh; iqfyl lsok] >kj[kaM ljdkj 19-11-08 oknh mifLFkrA izfroknh vuqifLFkrA oknh dk ;g eqdnek ikVfyiq=k lgdkjh x`g fuekZ.k lfefr fy-] iVuk ds IykWV ua- 252 ij vfèkiR; ds lEcUèk esa gSA oknh us blds lkFk ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lhMCY;wtslh la[;k 4593@2001 esa fnukad 3-4-2007 dks ikfjr vkns'k] U;k;ky; fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡ }kjk fofoèk okn la[;k 186@1996 esa fnukad 17-7-2007@23-7-2007 dks ikfjr vkns'k rFkk ikVfyiq=k lgdkjh x`g fuekZ.k lfefr ds funs'kd eaMy }kjk fnukad 25-8-2007 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; ds dk;kZUo;u gsrq nk;j fd;k gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa ds vkèkkj ij IykWV ua- 252 ij Jherh dqeqn pkSèkjh] Hkkjrh; iqfyl lsok dk dCtk voSèk crk;k x;k gSA fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡] fcgkj] iVuk us vius fucfUèkr Mkd ls vius i=kad 6424 fnukad 25-9-2008 }kjk Jherh dqeqn pkSèkjh dks lhèks Hkh i=k fy[kk gS fd ^mDr U;k;kns'k ds vkyksd esa IykWV la[;k 252 dks vfoyEc vius xSj dkuwuh dCts ls eqDr dj nsa------------------------* A ysfdu blds ckotwn Jherh pkSèkjh }kjk bl fo"k; ij vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl U;k;ky; ds le{k Hkh fnukad 13-10-2008] fnukad 20-10-2008] fnukad 31-10-2008] fnukad 19-11-2008 dks izfroknh la[;k 2 u rks Lo;a mifLFkr gqbZ] u dksbZ izfrfufèk mifLFkr gq,] u dksbZ tokc bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gqvkA fucafèkr Mkd ls Hkstk x;k uksfVl Hkh okil dj fn;k x;kA miyCèk dkxtkr dh leh{kk ds vkèkkj ij ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pk gS fd ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k] U;k;ky; fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡] fcgkj] iVuk ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ,oa ikVfyiq=k lgdkjh x`g fuekZ.k lfefr fy- }kjk fn, x, vkns'k ds ckotwn izfroknh la[;k 2 Jherh dqeqn pkSèkjh }kjk IykWV la[;k 252 dks [kkyh ugha djuk voSèk gSA oknh us ;g Hkh vkjksi yxk;k gS fd mDr IykWV dks voSèk kj[kaM ljdkj rFkk eq[; lfpo] >kj[kaM ljdkj dks Hkh bl U;k;ky; ds ekè;e ls lwfpr djus gsrq vuqjksèk fd;k gSA mi;qZDr ds vkyksd esa izfroknh la[;k&3 Jherh dqeqn pkSèkjh }kjk IykWV la[;k 252 ij voSèk dCtk dk vkjksi lgh ekurs gq, bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g ik;k x;k gS fd ;g ekeyk fofèk O;oLFkk rFkk >kj[k.M ljdkj ds ,d ojh; inkfèkdkjh ls Hkh xEHkhj :i ls tqM+k gqvk gSA vr% iqfyl egkfuns'kd] >kj[kaM ljdkj rFkk eq[; lfpo] >kj[k.M ljdkj ls ;g U;k;ky; funsf'kr djsa fd os mDr IykWV dks 'kh?kz [kkyh dj nsa rkfd U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa dk vuqikyu gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr oknh bl ekeys dks fofèk O;oLFkk ls tqM+s gksus ds dkj.k fcgkj ljdkj ds le{k inkfèkdkjh rFkk l{ke U;k;ky; esa ys tkus ds fy, Lora= gSA bl izdkj bl okn dks fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA gñ@& vLi"V ftyk lgdkfjrk inkfèkdkjh] iVuk Kkikad---2957 fofèk] fnukad--20-11-08 izfrfyfi %& 1- Jherh vuohrk izèkku] ikVfyiq=k dkWyksuh] iVuk&13 2- lfpo] ikVfyiq=k lgdkjh x`g fuekZ.k lfefr fyñ] iVuk 3- Jherh dqeqn pkSèkjh] Hkkjrh; iqfyl lsok] >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk x`g vk;qDr] >kj[k.M ljdkj] jkWaphA 4- fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡] fcgkj] iVukA 5- iqfyl egkfuns'kd] >kj[kaM ljdkj] jk¡phA 6- eq[; lfpo] >kj[kaM ljdkj] jk¡phA dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vuqikyukFkZ vxzlkfjrA gñ@& vLi"V ftyk lgdkfjrk inkfèkdkjh] iVuk** 18. Subsequently, the respondent no.6, the Additional Collector, Law and Order, Patna vide memo no. 227 dated 23.1.2009 took steps for ensuring delivery of possession of the plot to the respondent nos. 5 to 7. 19. Both the orders dated 19.11.2008 and 23.1.2009 were challenged vide CWJC No. 3277 of 2009. 20. The two writ petitions were taken up by the learned Single Judge on 24.6.2016 and after hearing the parties and perusing the entire records, the same were discussed with the following observations:— "For the reasons so discussed, I find no infirmity in the opinion expressed by the Registrar in his order recorded on 17.7.2007/23.7.2007 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 1996 impugned at Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the Registrar has upheld the transfer in favour of the predecessor in interest of the private respondents, inter alia, on grounds that it was made by way of registered sale-deed and has set aside the order dated 24.7.1990 passed by the Board of 'the Society' whereby the allotment in favour of late G.S. Pandey has been set aside. Since the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the District Cooperative Officer bearing Memo No. 2957 dated 20.11.2008 and the order dated 23.1.2009 of the Additional Collector impugned at Annexure 1 and 2 of CWJC No. 3277 of 2009 are only a consequence flowing from the order of the Registrar impugned in CWJC No. 12255 of 2007 hence for the reasons so assigned hereinabove, the same also calls for no interference. In result, the two writ petitions are dismissed and since there is already an order passed on 27.8.2007 by the Board of 'the Society' resolving to return the amount deposited by the writ petitioner for allotment and it is the petitioner who has been contesting the matter before the Court and has not taken steps for refund thereof, all that this Court would observe is that should the petitioner approach the Board of 'the Society' for refund of the amount deposited by her, they shall be duty bound to refund the same within a maximum period of three months from the date of filing of any such claim and in case the refund is ot made within the said period of three months then the petitioner would be entitled to claim interest thereon at the Bank rate. The two writ petitions are dismissed with the observations aforementioned." 21. The two writ petitions are dismissed with the observations aforementioned." 21. Still aggrieved, the appellant-petitioner preferred the present appeal and in this way, the matter has come up before us. 22. Heard counsel for the parties. 23. The admitted fact is that the litigation with regard to Plot No. 252 started in the year 1990 when the Honorary Secretary of 'the Society' executed the deed of annulment of the said land allotted to late G.S. Pande on 26.5.1990. Further passing of the resolution by the 'Board of Society' on 24.7.1990. The aforesaid decisions were questioned by the late G.S. Pande vide Misc. Case No. 186 of 1996 and also got status quo order on 3.7.1996 by the Registrar, Cooperative Society. 24. However, in complete disregard of the order of status quo dated 3.7.1996 granted in favour of late G.S. Pande, the portion of the Plot No. 252(252/A) was allotted in favour of the petitioner within a week, on 9.7.1996. 25. On 29.6.1998, the Misc. Case No. 186 of 1996 came to be dismissed and the same was promptly challenged by late G.S. Pande vide CWJC No. 6621 of 1998. 26. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, 'the Society' also allotted the remaining portion of Plot No. 252(252/B) to the appellant-petitioner on 23.8.1998. Late G.S. Pande obtained an order of status quo on the very next day on 24.8.1998. The appellant-petitioner meanwhile deposited altogether a sum of Rs. 10, 69, 800/- on 18/8/98, 30/11/2000 and 31.12.2000. 27. The writ petition No. 6621 of 1998 was allowed on 25.4.2000. The order passed in Misc. Case No. 186 of 1996 was set aside and the matter was remanded for deciding afresh. 28. The Misc. Case No. 186 of 1996 once again came to be dismissed on 28.11.2000 followed by filing of CWJC No. 4593 of 2001 by late G.S. Pande. As he died during the pendency of the writ petition, he was substituted by his legal heirs. 29. Once again, the writ petition, CWJC No. 4593 of 2001 was allowed on 13.4.2007 and the order dated 28.11.2000 passed in Misc. Case No. 186 of 1996 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. 30. The Misc. Case No. 186 of 1996 was finally allowed on 17.07.2007/23.7.2007 following which the land allotted to the appellant-petitioner was cancelled. 'The Board' accordingly restored the plot no. Case No. 186 of 1996 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. 30. The Misc. Case No. 186 of 1996 was finally allowed on 17.07.2007/23.7.2007 following which the land allotted to the appellant-petitioner was cancelled. 'The Board' accordingly restored the plot no. 252 to the legal heirs of late G.S. Pande on 27.8.2007. 31. The orders dated 23.7.2007/27.8.2007 were challenged by the appellant-petitioner vide CWJC No. 12255 of 2007. 32. Subsequently, on 19.11.2008/20.11.2008 the respondent no.5 passed an order for grant of possession of plot to the respondent nos. 5 to 7. It was followed by the order dated 23.01.2009 by the respondent no. 6 by which steps were taken for delivery of possession of the plot to respondent nos. 5 to 7. 33. This was challenged by the appellant-petitioner by filing CWJC No. 3277 of 2009. 34. The admitted position is/are that earlier G.S. Pande and later his heirs strenuously persued the matter before one or the other forum and were also granted status quo from time to time. 35. Thus, there was no occasion for 'the Patliputra Society' to rush through the process of allotment of land in favour of the appellant-petitioner earlier on 9.7.1996 and later on 23.8.1998. Further, the Registrar, Cooperative Society had rightly observed in its order dated 17.07.2007/23.7.2007 that 'the Board of Society' had no jurisdiction to overlook the registered sale deed while cancelling the allotment of plot on 24.7.1990 as the documents would be binding on them as long as it is not set aside by the competent court. In this context, it is important to quote the order of the Apex Court in AIR 1973 SC 2451 (Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh and Others) in which para-5 states as follow:— 5. There is no decision of this Court directly on the question whether a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed, which was pending on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, abates under Section 5(2) of the Act. A decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Jagarnath Shukla Vs. Sita Ram Pande [1969 ALJ 768] , directly dealing with the question before us, was then cited before us. A decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Jagarnath Shukla Vs. Sita Ram Pande [1969 ALJ 768] , directly dealing with the question before us, was then cited before us. Here, we find a fairly comprehensive discussion of the relevant authorities of the Allahabad High Court the preponderating weight of which is cast in favour of the view that questions relating to the validity of sale-deeds, gift deeds, and wills could be gone into in proceedings before the consolidation authorities, because such questions naturally and necessarily arose and had to be decided in the course of adjudication on rights or interests in land which are the subject-matter of consolidation proceedings. We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in land which are the subject-matter of consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction, by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interests in land, to declare such documents effective or ineffective, but, where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a court having the power to cancel it. In the case before us, the plaintiff's claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid, inoperative, and void. Such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation courts. In the case before us, the plaintiff's claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid, inoperative, and void. Such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation courts. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jagarnath Shukla case that it is the substance of the claim and not its form which is decisive. 36. The said observation becomes important in the backdrop of the fact that although 'the Society' cancelled the allotment of plot to late G.S. Pande, it took no steps for the cancellation of the sale deed. Thus, the orders passed by the respondent-authorities on 17.7.2007/23.7.2007 and 27.08.2007 were perfectly justified. Further, the respondent no.5 was also justified in passing the order dated 19.11.2008/20.11.2008 by which direction was given for grant of possession to the respondent nos. 5 to 7. The learned Single Judge had reasoned out the entire facts which led him to decide the matter in favour of the respondent Nos 7 to 9 and thus rightly dismissed the writ petition vide an order dated 24.6.2016. 37. It is also important to take note of the submission made by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition duly incorporated by the learned Single Judge wherein alternative argument was advanced stating that if the case of the appellant-petitioner is not upheld, proper direction be issued to 'the Society' for refund of the amount deposited by her with interest since the amount is lying for almost two decades. 38. The learned Single Judge thus took note of the alternative argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner while dismissing the writ petition and it was observed that 'the Society' shall be duty bound to refund the amount within a maximum period of three months from the date of filing of any such claim and in case the refund is not made within the stipulated period, the appellant-petitioner would be entitled to claim interest thereon at the bank rate. 39. It is needless to observe that 'the Society' has to act in line with the order passed by the learned Writ Court on 24.6.2016 with regard to the return of the amount, if the same has still not been done. 40. 39. It is needless to observe that 'the Society' has to act in line with the order passed by the learned Writ Court on 24.6.2016 with regard to the return of the amount, if the same has still not been done. 40. Having taken into account entire facts relating to the case and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the order dated 24.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 12255 of 2007 and in CWJC No. 3277 of 2009 and the same is thus affirmed. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.