- (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner has installed a stone crushing machine at Jawahar Tekri, Indore and it is there since 1961-62. The land occupied by the petitioner for the purposes of the machine falls within the area in respect of which the society holds lease from the State Government for stone quarry. On 18-12-1963 the society (respondent No. 2) demanded surface rent from the petitioner for the area occupied by the crushing machine at the rate of Rs. 27/- per day for 30. 000 square feet or less subiect to an additional charge of Re. 1/- per day for 1000 square feet above this. The basis of this demand is the deparmental order annexure A. The contention of the petitioner is that this demand is illegal and that the society can at the most claim rent on the basis of dead rent. Respondent No. 2 submitted a claim under Section 64 of the Madhva Pradesh Co-operative Societies act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Assistant Registrar. Cooperative societies (respon-dent No. 1) for the recovery of Rs. 23,360,00 as surface rent for the period from 1-6-1963 to 31-3-1965 vide Annexure 'b'. On 5-21966 the petitioner filed an application under Section 67 (2) of the Art for permission to be represented by a legal practitioner vide Annexure 'd'. This application was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order (Annexure E) dated 5-21966. On 15-2-1966, the respondent No. 2 filed an application before the respondent No. 1 under Section 68 of the Act supported by an affidavit for an attachment before the award (vide Annexures 'f' and 'g' ). On the basis of this application the respondent No. I passed an order of attachment of the stone crushing machine and other equipments of the petitioner (vide Annexure 'h' ). Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed this petition.
(3.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the dispute between the parties does not fall within the definition of dispute as given in Section 64 (2) of the Act, and as such the Assistant Registrar (respondent No. 2) was not competent to entertain the claim of the respondent No. 1 and to pass the impugned order of attachment. He has, therefore, prayed that the order of attachment be quashed and so also the proceedings before the respondent No. 1. It is further prayed that the demand of the respondent No. 2 be declared to be illegal and void.;