(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.2783 of 2023.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.2783 of 2023, whereby, the challenge made to the order of second respondent dated 28.12.2020 was rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that appellant and his father were making applications, at least from the year 1990, seeking re-conveyance of their property and that their attempts ended only in vain since the details of the amount due and payable by appellant’s father was not disclosed to them. He further submitted that when the application was made for re-conveyance, second respondent, by the impugned order, rejected the same on the ground that appellant is not entitled to seek re-conveyance under Rule 131 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Society submitted that when the properties were auctioned and was purchased by second respondent in 1979, appellant made a claim for re-conveyance belatedly. On earlier occasion, the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 10.03.2010, allowed appellant to make an application under Rule 131 of the Rules. But, appellant filed an application only in the year 2020 and the writ Court, taking note of the same, rejected the claim of appellant.

4. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

5. Appellant's father had availed loan from the Society and committed default in repayment. In order to adjust the loan dues, properties of appellant's father were brought for auction and second respondent Society has purchased the property as early as 29.10.1979. Appellant's father initially came up with an application seeking re-conveyance by placing reliance on Rule 131 of the Rules. When the same was rejected, earlier round of litigation came up before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23717 of 2008 which was taken along with W.A.No.1158 of 2008.

6. The Coordinate Bench, by order dated 10.03.2010, disposed both the writ petition and writ appeal by observing that even though only six months' time was permitted to file an application for reconveyance, when the property was sold, appellant's father, admittedly, has not filed an application in consonance with the same. However, the Division Bench allowed appellant to file a proper application seeking re-conveyance in accordance with Rule 131 of the Rules, after ascertaining the amount that are to be deposited in accordance with the Rules.

7. Admittedly, even if such an order was passed by the Division Bench, neither appellant nor father evinced any interest to ascertain the dues and to file proper application as directed by this Court. After the order was passed in 2010, appellant's father woke up from deep slumber and made an application only in 2020 claiming re-conveyance of his property under Rule 131 of the Rules. The said application was considered and rejected by second respondent, by order dated 28.12.2020.

8. The learned Single Judge, by considering the order passed earlier and taking note of the fact that application was filed by appellant only in the year 2020, dismissed the writ petition holding that the claim raised by appellant cannot be entertained in view of delay and laches.

9. When second respondent Society has purchased the property in the year 1979, appellant made a claim nearly after 46 years and despite an opportunity was granted earlier by this Court to ascertain the dues and make a proper application in the year 2010, the appellant did not do so but filed application after 10 years in the year 2020.

10. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. Thus, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.