Parwana Coop. G/H Society Ltd. vs Registrar Cooperative Societies
2002 Latest Caselaw 1061 Del

JUDGMENT

B.A. Khan, J.

1. Private Respondents 3-7 were enrolled as members in petitioner society by the then Administrator Mr. S.S. Harit whose appointment was later recalled. Feeling aggrieved they approached the Registrar and obtained an award which affirmed their membership. The petitioner society took appeal against this and they in turn filed execution proceedings. The Executing/Recovery Officer passed order dated 9.7.2001 passing certain directions requiring the petitioner society to apply for enhancement of F.A.R. and to construct additional flats for them and so on. The petitioner society has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Executing/Recovery Officer on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction and had travelled beyond the terms of the award.

2. L/C for the petitioner Mr. Chandra has taken us through the award and the order passed by the Executing/Recovery Officer to show that the award only culminated in upholding the membership of these private respondents 3-7 and the Executing/Recovery Officer had gone beyond its terms calling upon the society to do certain things which it was not competent to do. He did not, however, press his

challenge to the award by, the Registrar upholding the membership of private respondents 3-7.

3. L/C for private respondents 3-7 Mr. Munjal, however, defended the order of the Executing/Recovery Officer explaining the circumstances in which he had passed some directions requiring society to do certain acts.

4. We have perused both the award and the impugned order passed by Executing/Recovery Officer and we feel convinced that the Executive/Recovery Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by passing impugned directions. We find that the award had only affirmed and uphold the membership of the private respondents 3-7 and had left the issue relating to allotment of flats open. But the Executing/Recovery Officer had strangely taken upon himself to deal with the issue relating to allotment of flats to private respondents 3-7 and in process had transgressed his jurisdictional limits.

5. It is well settled that executing agency/forum is not competent to go behind the award in the same manner as executing court can not go behind the terms of the decree. The executing officer having gone beyond the terms of award had transgressed his jurisdictional limits rendering the impugned order unsustainable. The order is accordingly set aside. This shall, however, not come in the way of private respondents 3-7 to seek enforcement of their rights which may flow to them from their membership in the appropriate forum under law.