# Haripuram Sahakari Awas Samiti & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 196 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-20 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 44298 of 2025 - **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Satya Veer Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/haripuram-sahakari-awas-samiti-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-issue-for-consideration-53966 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "21. In the present case, though the State has not been able to indicate exactly as to when possession was taken by the State, it is clear from the facts that by a Government Order dated December 11, 1996 the State, after having supposedly taken possession of the land, had transferred the same to Prayagraj Development Authority. However, in the counter-affidavit the State has not been able to indicate any notice under Section 10 (6) of the Ceiling Act having been issued to the land holder for forceful dispossession nor any amount having been paid by the State Government as compensation with respect to such land. These above facts tilt the scale in favour of the petitioners and one has to conclude that even though there have been laches on the part of the petitioners, the State has ultimately not ever been able to show de facto possession." 40. Even in the present case, the respondents have utterly failed to demonstrate that any notice under Section 10 (6) of the Act, 1976 had ever been issued to the land holder or dispossession from the land in question of the land holder had been carried out by the State or any amount (Sandeya Dhanrashi) had been paid by the State Government as compensation in respect of the land in question to the land holder. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the petitioners, their predecessors and transferees had remained in continuous possession of the land in question. 41. Under these circumstances, it is beyond doubt that the proceedings initiated in Ceiling Case No. 792/1105/80-81 (State vs. Lalji) under the Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 stood abated with the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999. 42. Hence the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by Competent Authority-respondent no.3 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to writ petition is hereby quashed. The concerned revenue authorities are further directed to incorporate necessary correction in the revenue records accordingly within a period of one month of supply of certified copy of this order. 43. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 196 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. Writ C No. 44298 of 2025 Haripuram Sahakari Awas Samiti & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION 1 All. Haripuram Sahakari Awas Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 197 I. Whether sale deeds executed by the society can be challenged in a reference under Section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965; II. Whether the Arbitrator/Registrar can examine the validity of registered sale deeds under Section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 HEADNOTE U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, Section 70(1)(b) - Disputes which may be referred to arbitration - Dispute raised by a member against the society for dealing with the lands in favour of non-members - Claim seeking declaration that the sale deeds executed by the society be declared null and void - Scope of reference under Section 70 - It is not open for the Arbitrator/Registrar to examine the validity of the sale deeds under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act - Arbitrator/Registrar, in dealing with the reference, can answer whether the society had authority or lacked authority to convey the lands - If any person, if felt aggrieved, the remedy lies before the civil Court having jurisdiction. HELD: Petitioners are a co-operative society. Respondent No. 4, a member thereof, sought reference to arbitration under Section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the society in favour of purchasers be declared null and void. The society challenged the reference on the ground that such prayer was beyond the scope of Section 70. Held: In Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House Building Society Limited v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the Supreme Court observed that it is not open to examine the validity of registered sale deeds within the domain and ambit of Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act and that, if any person feels aggrieved, the remedy lies before the civil Court having jurisdiction. In the present case, the Arbitrator/Registrar, while dealing with the reference, will answer it on whether the society had authority or lacked authority to convey the lands. In the event the member is successful, he or the society can approach the competent civil Court for delivery up and cancellation of the registered sale deeds.(Paras 1-7) CASE LAW CITED Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House Building Society Limited v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, (2019) 3 SCC 745. List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. List of Keyword Co-operative Societies Act; Registered sale deeds; Declaration null and void; Scope of arbitrator's jurisdiction; Domain and ambit of Section 70; Authority of society to convey land; Cancellation of sale deed; Civil Court jurisdiction. CASE ARISING FROM Reference sought by respondent No. 4 under Section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Appearances for Parties Advs For Petitioner: Abhishek Misra Advs For Respondents: Arun Kumar; C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.) 1. Petitioners are a cooperative society. Respondent no. 4 is member thereof. Said respondent has sought reference to arbitration under section 70 in Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. English translation of the claim statement filed by respondent no. 4 before the Registrar was handed over by Mr. H.R. Mishra. From it we see, the purchasers were made party by respondent no. 4 in seeking the reference. Prayers made in the claim statement are reproduced below. " 5. Reliefs sought 1. That the Plaintiffs most respectfully pray that the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 1, which was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar-I, Agra Sadar, on 29/08/2024, bearing Deed No. 1, Volume No. 12414, Pages 213 to 230, Serial No. 7662, be declared null and void. 2. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Arbitration Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the applicant. 3. That the respondents may also be directed to pay the litigation expenses to the applicant; failing which the applicant will suffer financial loss." The society (petitioners) have come up against the reference, seeking quashing of it. 2. Mr. H.R. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners (the society). He submits, his client, for its purposes, sold away some lands. The sale deeds executed by his client, which conveyed the lands were duly registered. Prayer of respondent no. 4 in the reference seeking that the sale deeds be declared null and void is beyond scope of reference provided in section 70. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Dayal bagh Cooperative House Building Society Limited v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies reported in (2019) 3 SCC 745, paragraph 48. Last sentence in the paragraph is reproduced below. "48.....In the given facts and circumstances, if the allotment has been made by the society as a freehold land to its members who have further transferred/sold the subject land/plot by registered sale deed to its successors/purchasers, their rights to become member of the society are indeed saved under Section 91 of the Act, 2003 that in no manner could be eluded by the byelaws and that apart if anyone has any objection regarding the registered instrument(sale deed) pursuant to which right has been created, at least it is not open to examine its validity within the domain and ambit of Section 70 of the cooperative societies Act and any person, if felt aggrieved, the remedy lies only before the civil Court having jurisdiction questioning the registered instrument within the parameters available under the law. " (emphasis supplied) 1 All. Haripuram Sahakari Awas Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 199 3. Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned advocate Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 4. He submits, the reference is well within scope provided under section 70. He relies on view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Yaduraj Singh vs. District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, reported in 2013 (1) AWC 427. He relies on paragraph 35 (Supreme Today Print), reproduced below. "35. I therefore have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of petitioner(s) that respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to entertain dispute in question with respect to violation of conditions of sale-deed, bye laws and the Rules of Co-operative Society and to consider the consequences thereof on the sale deed(s) executed between the petitioner(s) and respondent no. 3 and to pass consequential order accordingly. The jurisdiction of respondents 1 and 2 to arbitrate in these matters is thus upheld." Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra draws attention to paragraph 6 in the judgment (Supreme Today Print) to submit, the learned single Judge expressed the view in paragraph 35 on the contention of petitioner therein, as recorded in paragraph 6. Said paragraph 6 is also reproduced below. "6. The basic contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that impugned orders are without jurisdiction. Respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to declare a sale deed, null and void since such an issue could have been raised in a court of law only by filing a civil suit. So far as the appellate order is concerned, it is submitted that the appellate authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing appeal inasmuch as, when the sole Arbitrator himself lacked jurisdiction, the Appellate Authority also could have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Even otherwise, appeal involving the disputed amount exceeding Rs. 10,000/- is maintainable before U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lucknow, as per notification dated 4.3.1979 and hence appeal was not maintainable before the District Assistant Register (Co-operative Societies)." 4. We see that scope of reference of disputes has been provided in sub-section (1) of section 70. Clause (b) in section 70(1) is reproduced below. "70 (1) Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arise- (a) ................... (b) between a member, past member or any persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, and the society its Committee of Management or any officer, agent or employee of the society including any past officer, agent or employee; or (c) .................... (d) ...................." (emphasis supplied) 5. Challenge to the reference is in respect of its scope. We are to see the sale deeds executed by the society, if can be challenged in a reference on a claim for them being declared null and void. It appears from Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House Building Society Limited v. Registrar, 200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Cooperative Societies (supra) facts in that case were, allotments had been made by the society, of lands, to its members who had further transferred and sold the plots by registered sale deeds, to their purchasers. The Supreme Court said, right of the purchasers to become members of the society are indeed saved under section 91 of the Act of 2003 (Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003), having similar provisions as in the local Act of 1965. In that context the Supreme Court said, as it appears to us, it is not open (for the Arbitrator/Registrar) to examine validity (of the sale deeds) within the domain and ambit of section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act and any person, if felt aggrieved, the remedy lies before the civil Court having jurisdiction. 6. In this case the dispute raised is by a member against the society for dealing with the lands in favour of non members. The non members have not applied to become members. Respondent no. 4 (member) has assailed the transactions and wants declaration that they be declared null and void. Facts in this case are distinct from facts in Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House Building Society Limited (supra). However, we will go so far as to observe that in dealing with the reference the Arbitrator/ Registrar will answer it on authority had or lack of it, by the society, to convey the lands. In event respondent no. 4 is successful, he or the society can approach the competent civil Court for delivery up and cancellation of the registered sale deeds. 7. The writ petition is disposed of to extent as aforesaid. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 200 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ C No. 1000345 of 2001 Krishna Mohan Tewari & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether petitioners, in whose favour resolution of the Land Management Committee granting lease of Gaon Sabha land was not approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, could claim any right or lawful possession over the land in dispute. HEADNOTE U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 122-B - Unauthorised occupation of Gaon Sabha land - Recourse under Section 122-B for eviction - Resolution of Land Management Committee granting lease not approved by S.D.M. - No right accrues in favour of the allottee - Possession, if any, without authority wholly illegal - Petitioners admitted non-possession.