* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.03.2017
Pronounced on: 30.05.2017
+ C.M. APPL.48257-58/2016, 5434/2017 & 5468/2017 IN
REV.PET.175/2016 IN W.P.(C) 495/2007
SUBHASH KWATRA ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with
Sh. A.S. Khatri, Advocate.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES..... Respondent
Through : Sh. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Sidharth Chopra and Sh. Harsh Kumar, Advocates,
for Applicant Nos. 1 to 4.
Ms. Richa Singhal and Sh. Bhaskar, applicants in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. These applications seek relief in respect of a judgment of this court,
rendered in a batch of writ petitions including WP 495/2007, on 23.02.2016.
2. The final judgment of 23.02.2016 recounted the facts, and directions
were issued to the respondent authorities in respect of 29 flats that had been
occupied by unauthorized individuals. The Court had, based upon the
previous orders in various proceedings held that possession of those flats by
C.M.APPL.48257-58/2016, 5434/2017 & 5468/2017 IN REV.PET.175/2016 Page 1 of 5
its occupants- which include the present review petitioners, was not based on
any valid allotment involving the Registrar, Cooperative Societies or the
DDA. The writ petition was allowed and following directions were issued: -
"(1) The respondent authorities, especially the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies takes appropriate steps to evict the 29
unauthorized occupants whose possession is plainly unlawful.
(2) This process shall be completed at the earliest and in any
event not later than eight weeks from today. If necessary, the
Registrar shall seek the assistance of all authorities including
the Delhi Police in ensuring that the process is complete.
(3) Within six weeks of completion of the steps indicated in
No.1 above, the DDA and RCS shall ensure that the names of
the present petitioners-and all other individuals while like them
(whose names are mentioned in Annexure 2 to the affidavit of
Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh, Assistant Registrar and all others
placed similarly are included in the drawof-lots.
(4) the respondents shall ensure that based upon the results of
the draw-of-lots, the possession of the flats allotted to those
successful in the draw - of- lots are handed over within four
months from today."
3. Some of the contesting respondents, who faced dispossession due to
the final judgment, filed review petition, being RP 175/2016. That review
petition, along with review petitions filed by a few others, who had a
grievance that they were lawfully allotted flats, were considered. Whereas
the other review petitions (RP 12/2016 and RP 212/2016) were allowed and
relief granted, this court, by its order dated 10.11.2016 rejected RP
175/2016. While rejecting that review petition, this court observed, inter
alia, as follows:
C.M.APPL.48257-58/2016, 5434/2017 & 5468/2017 IN REV.PET.175/2016 Page 2 of 5
"5. Some of the occupants who are in possession of the flats and are
facing eviction urged that this Court should recall and modify its
order. It is argued on their behalf by Mr. Anil Amrit that they had paid
the amounts due and were given membership by the Society and
should be considered as legitimate and regular members. It was urged
that in any case having regard to the length of their occupancy, the
Court should permit their occupation in the flat till additional flats are
constructed and their proper draw of lots held, to accommodate them.
In the alternative, it was urged that in any event, the time given to
them to vacate the premises is too short and the Court should extend
the period in that regard.
******************
*******************
8. As far as the submissions of the other parties, i.e., other members to be evicted are concerned, the Court sees no justification or rationale to review its directions. The final judgment itself would show that the matter with respect to legitimacy or occupation of the 29 flats was pending consideration from 2004; on 17.08.2009 those petitions were disposed of; even the review petitions were rejected later. The Court had noticed another previous Petition - W.P.(C)495/2007 and various orders made from time to time in that case as well as the order dated 29.10.2010. The legality of the possession of subsequent occupants - who were given the flat after the draw of lots in the 163 built up flats - was, therefore, held to be unlawful. 9. Having regard to the findings which are based upon a series of previous orders, the Court sees no reason to disturb the final directions in its main judgment of 23.02.2016."
4. The present applicants in CM No.48257/2016 seek modification/clarification of the judgment dated 23.02.2016 and order dated 10.1l.2016. They argue that their occupation of the flats (B-104, D-101, D- 301 and C-104) should be left undisturbed and that their possession should be deemed validly to have been given to them. It is submitted that the original occupants and allottees of other flats (E-502, E-601, D-704 and C-
202) had with consent of the co-operative society, exchanged the said flats C.M.APPL.48257-58/2016, 5434/2017 & 5468/2017 IN REV.PET.175/2016 Page 3 of 5 allotted to them with Flat Nos. B-104, D-101, D-301 and C-104. As transferees/ successors in interest of such members, the present applicants claim to be in lawful possession and occupation of the said four flats, which, they say cannot be treated as unauthorized allotments. They rely on the possession slips given to the original allottees, in respect of these flats, as well as certain orders of the court, made in WP 495/2007. The applicants also rely on an inspection report, prepared by the Registrar, dated 27.10.2010 in support of their submission.
5. This court is of the opinion that the relief claimed by the applicants cannot be granted. The applicants' predecessors in interest may have been allotted flats. However, the flats that they were ultimately permitted to occupy were not subjected to the process of regular allotment; the respondent society merely permitted an exchange of the allotted flat with the unallotted flat. If matters had remained as such, arguably, the applicants' claim could have been considered. However, the record reveals that the flats allotted to them are now under occupation of those who were not allotted flats in the manner known to law, i.e with the involvement of DDA, or through a regular draw of lots. Therefore, the claim that they are prejudiced, cannot be countenanced.
6. This court's conclusion is supported by the document relied on by the applicants, i.e. the inspection report, dated 27.10.2010, which inter alia, states as follows (in Para 4.1):
"it has been noticed that the following flats not allotted by the D.D.A. have been allotted by the Managing Committee and possession handed over to the members mentioned against each"C.M.APPL.48257-58/2016, 5434/2017 & 5468/2017 IN REV.PET.175/2016 Page 4 of 5
This clearly shows that the applicants took the flats, knowing fully well that the previous occupants did not secure possession through a draw of lots, but rather by their not taking possession of flats allotted to them. Those flats therefore, could not have been exchanged. Permitting such "exchange" of an unallotted flat with an allotted flat, without the intervention or concurrence of DDA would mean that two procedures- one involving the DDA and the other, a unilateral allotment by the society can, in effect prevail. Such procedure is unknown to law and would in fact undermine the due process in such cases.
7. For these reasons, it is held that the applicants cannot be granted the reliefs they seek. The court also notices, additionally, that a special leave petition (SLP 1718-19/2017) was preferred against the main judgment of the High Court, which was rejected on 13.01.2017. The Supreme Court also granted six months to the parties to vacate the premises under their occupation.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the applications (C.M.P No.48257-58/ 2016 (with CM 5434 & 5468/2016) are dismissed; in the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) MAY 30, 2017 C.M.APPL.48257-58/2016, 5434/2017 & 5468/2017 IN REV.PET.175/2016 Page 5 of 5