Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated May 18, 2015 passed by the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2012. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the revisional petitioner, against the judgment and order dated April 17, 2012 passed by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Co-operative Directorate (H.Q), West Bengal, as the arbitrator in Dispute Case No. 34/RCS of 2011 thereby, rejecting the dispute case filed by the petitioner, against the opposite party no. 1.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading up to the present revisional application are that the opposite party no. 1 is a registered co-operative society, inter alia, with the object of purchasing, taking on lease or otherwise acquiring land, building and other immovable properties for settlement of its members. Having entered into an agreement with the State of West Bengal to execute and complete a development scheme in respect of certain lands situate at Behala, the opposite party no. 1 had offered to sell plots of such land to its various members at a fixed rate. One Jyotsnamoyee Roy, the grandmother of the petitioner, was a member of the opposite party no. 1. By an agreement dated May 26, 1959 between the opposite party no. 1 and Jyotsnamoyee Roy, since deceased, the latter was allotted a piece of land measuring 4.64 cottahs, being Plot No. 176 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") under the aforementioned scheme. Upon the death of the said Jyotshnamoyee Roy, her son Dilip Kumar Roy, the father of the petitioner was accepted as a member of the opposite party no. 1 and during his lifetime, the said father of the petitioner paid the full and the final amount of the suit property and he also paid the other necessary charges to the opposite party no. 1. However, on January 8, 1984 the said Dilip Kumar Roy passed away leaving behind the petitioner his son, the proforma opposite party no. 2 his widow and the proforma opposite party nos. 3 and 4 his two daughters. After the death of his father, the petitioner constructed the boundary wall of the suit property. By a letter dated May 18, 2010 the petitioner and his mother, the proforma opposite party no. 2 requested the opposite party no. 1 society to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit property, in favour of the petitioner by making him the member of the society. Even the proforma opposite party nos. 2 to 4 also communicated to the opposite party no. 1, in writing that they have no objection to the petitioner being admitted as a member of the society and the suit property being allotted to him. Since, the request of the petitioner and his mother evoked no response from the opposite party no. 1, the petitioner filed the aforesaid dispute case before the learned Registrar of Co-operative Societies, under Section 103 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006"), read with Rule 110 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") praying for an order of specific performance of contract directing the opposite party no. 1 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit property in his favour, as per Section 103 of the Act of 2006 the said application of the petitioner was heard by the arbitrator and the opposite party no. 1 society contested the said claim case. On April 17, 2012 the arbitrator passed an award rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The arbitrator held that since the petitioner is not the member of the co-operative society, the dispute raised by him is not maintainable and the petitioner has the liberty to move the proper forum to settle the dispute. Feeling aggrieved by the said award passed by the arbitrator the petitioner challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the Tribunal. The opposite party no. 1 contested the said appeal before the Tribunal and raised a contention that the father of the petitioner Dilip Kumar Roy, since deceased was not admitted as a member of the society. After considering all the records, the Tribunal held that the father of the petitioner Dilip Kumar Roy, since deceased was admitted as a member of the opposite party no. 1. By order dated May 18, 2015 the Tribunal, however, held that the petitioner did not file any dispute for any inaction of the opposite party no. 1 to admit him as its member and he has filed the dispute case for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction, but since the petitioner has not yet been admitted as a member of the opposite party he is not entitled to claim such relief. The Tribunal held that the relief sought for by the petitioner are premature and the dispute case for such relief is not maintainable. On these grounds, by the order dated May 18, 2015 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. As stated above, it is the said order dated May 18, 2015 passed by the Tribunal which is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application. From the affidavits of service filed on behalf of the petitioner it appears that in terms of the order dated October 14, 2015 a copy of the revisional application was forwarded to the opposite party no. 1 by courier service and the latter received the same. Even the proforma opposite parties were served with the copies of the revisional application. However, none appeared either on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 or any of the proforma opposite parties, to oppose this application.
(3.) Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Anirban Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the Tribunal committed an error of law in not setting aside the award dated April 17, 2012 passed by the arbitrator. The petitioner challenged both the findings of the arbitrator in the award dated April 17, 2012, as well as the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that since he is not yet a member of the opposite party no. 1, the dispute raised by him for obtaining an order of specific performance of contract directing the opposite party no. 1 to execute and register of the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit property in his favour cannot be entertained is vitiated by a patent error of law. Referring to the agreement dated May 26, 1950 entered into between the petitioner's grandmother, Jyotsnamoyee Roy and the opposite party no. 1, annexed to the present revisional application, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party no. 1 was set up and registered, inter alia, with the object of purchasing, taking on lease or otherwise acquiring lands, building and other immovable properties for the settlement of its members. Therefore, it was argued that as per sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 102 of the Act of 2006 the dispute raised by the petitioner in the present case as the heir and legal representative of his deceased father, who was a member of the opposite party no. 1 was maintainable before the learned Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Civil Court or any Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum lacks the jurisdiction to try such dispute, but both the learned arbitrator and the Tribunal went wrong in law to reject the claim raised by the petitioner in the dispute case. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on the Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anjan Choudhury v. Anandaneer Co-operative Registered Housing Society and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 Cal 380 , the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sisirkana Guha & Ors. v. Ayakar Grihanirman Samabaya Samity Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2008) 2 CHN (Cal) 428 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Manojit Nag Chowdhury v. Saptaparni Co-operative Housing Society and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 Cal 181 .;