Manjeet Kaur vs Registrar Cooperative Society & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3202 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                Judgment delivered on: 17.08.2009

+      W.P.(C) 4256/2008


MANJEET KAUR                                                 ..... Petitioner

                                   - Versus -


REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ANR                          ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Petitioners : Mr Jayant Bhushan, Sr Advocate with Ms B. S.

                                   Mainee and Ms Meenu Mainee
For the Respondent No. 1         : Mr V. K. Tandon
For the Respondent No. 2         : Mr Sandeep Kumar

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This is the fourth round of litigation. The first round was the

writ petition being CWP 2170/1992, challenging the participation of

102 members of Jagriti Nagar Cooperative House Building Society in

the election of the said society. The said 102 members, including the

petitioner, were those members to whom allotment of plots had not

been made at that point of time. They had been enrolled during the

period 1984-85 and the last election of the society after their enrollment

had been held in 1989 in which the said 102 members had participated.

A dispute had been raised under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative

Societies Act, 1972, and the Joint Registrar, acting as an arbitrator,

made an Award dated 01.08.1991, whereby he concluded that the said

102 persons were members of the society. An appeal against the said

Award had also been preferred before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal

and the same came to be dismissed on 15.10.1991. The writ petition

being CWP 2170/1992, came to be filed when a subsequent election

was to be conducted and, once again, the competency of the 102

members to participate in the election was raised as an issue. By an

order dated 07.05.1993, a Division Bench of this Court held that the

Tribunal had already dismissed the appeal for exclusion of the 102

members from participating in the election and the order had not been

challenged in accordance with the bye-laws of the society.

Consequently, the said Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.

2. The second round of litigation was again in the shape of a writ

petition being CWP 1808/1997, when the said 102 members came to

this Court with the grievance that though they were members, their

names were not forwarded to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for

allotment of plots. The learned Single Judge, before whom this matter

came up, noted the history of the dispute between the parties

culminating in the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, being CWP

2170/1992. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 11.10.2000,

noted that once the High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the

persons who were aggrieved by the order passed by the Arbitrator and

the Tribunal, there was no reason for the Registrar not to send the

names of the 102 members to the DDA for allotment of plots and to

take necessary action including the issuance of a direction to the society

to hold the draw of lots and to allot the respective plots in favour of the

respective members. The learned Single Judge observed that the order

passed by the High Court had become final vis-a-vis membership of the

said 102 members. Consequently, he directed the Registrar of

Cooperative Societies, DDA as well as the Cooperative Society to take

appropriate steps to allot the plots in favour of the said 102 members.

3. Subsequently, demand notices were issued to the petitioner with

regard to the payment of certain dues on 25.11.2002 and 12.03.2003.

The said dues had been paid by the petitioner.

4. Since plots had been allotted to only 48 members out of the said

102 members and were not being allotted to the remaining, a contempt

petition was filed before this Court by the aggrieved persons. This was

the third round of litigation. The contempt petition being Contempt

Case (C) No. 378/2005, came to be disposed of by the order dated

01.05.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. He directed

that Justice P. K. Bahri, a former judge of this Court, be appointed as a

Court Nominee to scrutinize the claims of the persons who had not got

allotments out of the said list of 102 members. It was stated

specifically in paragraph 12 of the said order dated 01.05.2006, that the

list of members cleared by Justice P. K. Bahri would be accepted

without demur by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the DDA

would also act in pursuance of the said list cleared by Justice P. K.

Bahri.

5. Thereafter, Justice P. K. Bahri submitted his report dated

26.10.2006. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, her case was

considered at number 11 and it appears at internal pages 12, 13 and 14

of the said report. It appears that the petitioner was expelled from the

membership of the society on the ground that her husband owned

property in Delhi. The specific case was that her husband owned two

properties, namely, K-28D, Saket, New Delhi and flat No. 103, Amit

Cooperative Group Housing Society, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi.

6. The case of the petitioner, however, is that, first of all, she has

been living separately from her husband since a year after her marriage

in 1980. Her husband's name is Sh. Sukhinder Pal Singh. Her brother

shares the same initials but his name is Sh. Surinder Pal Singh.

Secondly, the said flat No. 103 at Amit Cooperative Group Housing

Society is not owned by her husband Sh. S. P. Singh but by her brother

Sh. Virender Pal Singh. It has been incorrectly stated in Justice P. K.

Bahri's report that the said flat No. 103 in Amit Cooperative Group

Housing Society stands in the name of her husband Sh. S. P. Singh.

The said flat, in fact, stands in the name of the petitioner's brother Sh.

Virender Pal Singh. This is clear from the certificate issued by Amit

Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, dated 13.06.2003, a copy of

which is placed at page 78 of the paper book. The certificate clearly

indicates that Sh. Virender Pal Singh, son of Shri Sujan Singh, is the

owner of flat No. 103, Amit Apartments Sector-13, Plot No. 32,

Rohini, Delhi-85 and that he has been residing in the flat for a long

time. There is also a copy of a letter placed at page 79 of the paper

book, issued by Sh. Virender Pal Singh in favour of the Administrator

of Jagriti Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, indicating that he

has been residing in the said flat No. 103, and that he is the owner of

the flat. He has, however, stated that his sister Smt. Manjeet Kaur (the

petitioner herein) is also residing with him in the said flat.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that

although the petitioner's brother Sh. Surinder Pal Singh does not own

flat No. 103 in Amit Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, he did

own another flat in the said society.

8. Insofar as the property No. K-28D, Saket is concerned, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this property belongs

to another brother of the petitioner, whose name is Sh. Prit Pal Singh.

In any event, it does not belong to her husband Sh. Sukhinder Pal

Singh. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner her husband

does not own any other property in Delhi and, in any event, did not

own the aforesaid properties at any point of time.

9. In these circumstances, after hearing the counsel for the parties,

we are of the view that the report insofar as the petitioner's entitlement

is concerned, contains errors which are contrary to the record. It is

apparent that neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's husband owned

any property in Delhi and particularly the said flat No. 103 at Amit

Cooperative Group Housing Society and the flat No. K-28D at Saket.

That being the case, the petitioner's expulsion from the membership of

Jagriti Cooperative House Building Society cannot be sustained and she

has to be reinstated as a member of the said society. The effect of this

would be that she would be entitled to an allotment of a plot in the said

society. This would, however, be subject to her filing an affidavit

indicating that:-

(i) she got married in the year 1980 and that, a year later,

she and her husband separated and they have been

living separately since then; and

(ii) that neither she nor her husband owned any property in

Delhi and particularly flat No. 103 at Amit

Cooperative Group Housing Society and/or flat No. K-

28D, Saket, New Delhi.

The said affidavit would be filed with the Administrator of Jagriti

Cooperative House Building Society within one week and thereafter,

the said society shall send her name to the Registrar of Cooperative

Societies for completing other formalities. Thereafter, the same shall

be forwarded to the DDA for draw of lots and allotment of plot.

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J AUGUST 17, 2009 SR