Ms. Kamala Sen W/O Sh. P.K. Sen vs Registrar Of Cooperative ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1312 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia issuance of an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to execute and register a conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner pursuant to and in the terms of the the agreement to sell dated 16.6.54 and subsequent letter dated 10.9.55 issued to the petitioner with regard to transfer of half of the plot no. 50, i.e. 50 A, Friends Colony, New Delhi and to produce relevant records with regard to the plot no. 50 and 50 A, Friend Colony, New Delhi as maintained with the respondent.

2. Pursuant to filing of this writ petition notice was issued to the respondent. Nobody appeared for the respondent No.2. Counsel appearing for the respondent/RCS who has filed reply to the application took the stand that there is no such society in the records of the respondent no.1 and whether the same has been in liquidation or not is also not on record of the respondent no.1. It is a case of abandonment of its obligations by the authorities to say the least.

3. The father of petitioner K.C. Neogy was the original member of respondent no.2/Society and he was allotted a plot of land no. 50 in Friends Colony by respondent no.2/Society ad-measuring an area of 3796 sq. yards. Thereafter, K.C.Neogi on 13.1.54 requested the Society to transfer the said plot in favor of his son Privthwish Neogy. The respondent no.2/Society agreed to the same and it was transferred on 2.5.54. Agreement to sell was also executed in favor of said Prithwish Neogy on 16.6.54. Prithwish Neogy wanted that plot to be subdivided between himself and his sister Kamala Sen who is the petitioner before us. The respondent/Society wrote a letter dated 15.6.55 and subsequent letter dated 10.9.1955, informing about the division of the said plot into two portions and allotted the one portion of plot no.50 in favor of the petitioner and gave number as 50A. Thereafter, the petitioner has been trying to get the conveyance deed registered with the authorities but has not met with success in this regard. Various letters have been addressed by the petitioner to the respondent/Society. No reply has been received by respondent/Society for execution of the conveyance deed.

4. In these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court for getting the conveyance deed executed. Mr.Bagai counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has contended that Registrar Cooperative Society has no role in execution of conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner. However, he has not denied the fact that Friends Colony is a free hold colony and Registrar, Cooperative Societies has nothing to do with regard to allotment of land.

5. Our attention has been drawn by counsel for the petitioner to an order passed in similar circumstances with regard to other half portion of the plot in question i.e. plot no.50, Friends Colony which pertains to brother of the petitioner. That order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.4.2005. The learned Single Judge noted that the respondent society was a defunct society and several attempts were made to obtain information about the society but without any success. Therefore, in view of not getting any information from the Society or by DDA or by office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, it was considered just and equitable that relief can be granted to the petitioner in the said writ petition, by issuance of direction that a conveyance deed be executed in favor of the petitioner. In the said writ petition the DDA was also party. DDA took the stand that the Society existed prior to coming into force of the DDA itself and therefore, the land in question was free hold at that time. In view of the fact that nobody on behalf of respondent no.2/ Society was coming forward in spite of issuance of notice, the Court directed the execution of conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner. To our mind what appropriate relief this Court can grant when the seller is not coming forward to execute the conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner and authorities are taking no stand with regard to the records as well as existance of the society itself. We do not find any force in the argument of counsel for the respondent no.1 that the Court cannot execute the conveyance deed on behalf of defunct society. If the authorities do not have the records of the society of Friends Colony, it reflects the state of affairs of the administration. A citizen cannot be left remediless, therefore, an officer of this Court will execute a conveyance deed on behalf of seller. It is in consonance with the principles of specific performance when seller after decree of court refused to perform, Court gives direction for execution of the sale deed through its officer. Therefore, likewise in the writ petition being W.P.(C) 909/2001 which was decided on 29.4.2005 with regard to plot no.50, we direct Mr.S.P.Tara, Deputy Registrar of this Court to execute the conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner. The costs and expenses for such conveyance shall be born by the petitioner. A direction is issued to the Sub-Registrar of the concerned zone to have the conveyance deed executed by Mr.S.P.Tara,Deputy Registrar on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 16.6.54. The petitioner is also directed to furnish an indemnity bond and undertaking to this Court to be settled in a format indicating that in case there is another claimant of this plot, the petitioner shall indemnify the seller with regard to costs and consequences thereof. The fee of Mr.S.P.Tara Deputy Registrar is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. The compliance report be filed by Mr.S.P.Tara, Deputy Registrar within eight weeks.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms thereof.