Delhi High Court

A.K. Verma vs Lt. Governor And Others on 30 July, 2009

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2009

+      WP (C) 873/1995

A.K. VERMA                                              ...    Petitioner

                                   - Versus -

LT. GOVERNOR AND OTHERS                                 ...    Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Petitioner               : Mr D.K. Rustagi
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3    : Mr V.K. Tandon
For the Respondent No. 5         : Mr Rajinder Mathur


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 writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.09.1994

passed by the Financial Commissioner and the order dated 05.08.1992

passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The grievance of

the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his father (Mr R.D. Verma) was the

original member of the Punjab National Bank Staff Co-operative House

Building Society (Respondent No.5 herein), enrolled in the year 1965. On

14.09.1970, Mr R.D. Verma purchased a half share (75 sq. yds.) in a built-up

house bearing No. 3515, Kucha Lal Man, Old Darya Ganj, Delhi. It is also

clear that the said property was in a notified slum area. Plot No. 224 in the

respondent society‟s land was allotted to Mr R.D. Verma on 08.05.1980 and

the same was transferred by Mr R.D. Verma in favour of his son Mr A.K.

Verma, the petitioner herein, on 01.11.1980. Thereafter, a sub-lease was

executed by the DDA, on 14.01.1982, in favour of the petitioner. The

respondent No.5 society came to know that Mr R.D. Verma had acquired the

said property in his name during his membership with the society and,

therefore, it was felt that Mr R.D. Verma had incurred a disqualification

under Rule 25 (1) (c) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as „the said Rules‟). Consequently, his case was

referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for adjudication. The

Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed an order dated 01.08.1986

holding that Mr R.D. Verma was disqualified and that his membership had

ceased. A copy of this order had been endorsed to the Deputy Director (CS),

DDA for information and necessary action. Whereupon, the DDA issued a

notice to the petitioner on 19.12.1983 asking him to show cause as to why

the sub-lease of the said plot be not determined and possession of the said

plot be not taken back, on account of breach of clause II (6) (b) of the sub-

lease deed.

2. It appears that Mr R.D. Verma preferred a revision petition before the

Lt. Governor against the order dated 01.08.1986 passed by the Assistant

Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Lt. Governor remanded the case to

the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on the ground that the property

acquired by Mr R.D. Verma fell within a slum area and the property was less

than 80 sq. yds. It was also observed by the Lt. Governor that no

opportunity had been given to the person affected by the impugned order.

The Lt. Governor also took the view that the order dated 01.08.1986 had

been passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, whereas,

according to the rules, he had no such power to disqualify or terminate the

membership of any person.

3. On remand, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, passed the order

dated 05.08.1982. By virtue of the said order, the Registrar, Co-operative

Societies, held Mr R.D. Verma to be disqualified to remain as a member of

the respondent No.5 society as on 14.09.1970, when he purchased the said

property. Consequently, it was held that the allotment of plot No. 224 to Mr

R.D. Verma and the transfer of membership of Mr R.D. Verma in favour of

his son, the petitioner herein, and the consequent transfer of plot No. 224 in

favour of the petitioner was void ab initio. The membership of the petitioner

was ordered to be terminated with a direction to the DDA to cancel the

allotment of plot No. 224 in the society‟s land in favour of the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition

under Section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, before the

Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner did not interfere

with the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. While doing

so, the Financial Commissioner held that it has not been proved that the

property said to have been purchased by Mr R.D. Verma was ancestral

property and, therefore, the exemption provided under Rule 25 of the said

Rules, applicable to such properties located in slum areas, could not be

extended to the petitioner.

5. Several points were taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

an attempt to persuade us to set aside the impugned order. One of them was

that the finding that the property was not an ancestral property was perverse.

The family tree of the petitioner was referred to, from which it became

apparent that one Mr Ramji Lal had transferred his share of the property to

the petitioner‟s father, Mr R.D. Verma, in 1970. The said share amounted to

approximately 75 sq. yds. and was under the limit of 80 sq. yds. prescribed

in the exemption provided under Rule 25 (1) (c) of the said Rules. It is an

admitted position that the said property was situated in a notified slum area.

The only question which remained was whether it was an ancestral property

or not ? The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that it

was ancestral property. He did so by referring to the said family tree which

indicated that Mr R.D. Verma‟s father, Mr Ganeshi Lal and Mr Ramji Lal

were brothers. Mr Ramji Lal went in adoption to Mr Nand Ram who was an

uncle of Ganeshi Lal, Mangal Chand and Ramji Lal. Mr R.D. Verma is the

son of Mr Ganeshi Lal. The property in question had been sold by Mr R.D.

Verma‟s uncle Mangal Chand in favour of the said Mr Ramji Lal. It is in

1970 that Mr Ramji Lal sold the said property in favour of Mr R.D. Verma.

It is on the basis of these facts that the learned counsel for the petitioner

claims the property to be an ancestral property.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before us a Division

Bench decision of this court in the case of O.P. Sethi v. Lt. Governor &

Others: 45 (1991) DLT 426 (DB) to submit that, even if we ignore the

question of transfer and disqualification, the petitioner would be entitled to

membership, because, after the date of the transfer, i.e., 16.11.1980, new

members had been enrolled by the society and plots were allotted to them.

Therefore, if the petitioner was eligible on his own on that date, i.e., after

16.11.1980, he could have been enrolled as a member and given a plot. He

also pointed out that the petitioner is still an employee of the Punjab

National Bank and, therefore, is eligible for membership of the respondent

No. 5 society. The Division Bench in O.P. Sethi (supra) made the following

observations:-

"The respondent-society had acceded to the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of his membership in favour of Smt. Partavati Devi and had in fact recommended the execution of sub-lease in her favour. Even otherwise we find from the membership register of the society, which was produced before us during the course of hearing, that society had admitted new members after the transfer of the plot in question in favour of Smt. Partavati Devi and there was no bar in her being enrolled as a new member in her own right."

7. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

society as well as the counsel for the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It

is an admitted position that after the alleged transfer on 16.11.1980, the

society enrolled new members. This would be apparent from the averments

contained in paragraph 4 of the writ petition and the reply given by the

respondent No.2 in its counter-affidavit, where they have admitted that new

members had been enrolled after 16.11.1980. However, they have clarified

that new members had applied for the same and that the petitioner had not

applied for a new membership. It is also an admitted position that there is

one plot vacant and there are no claimants in respect of the plot, other than

the petitioner.

8. In these circumstances, we feel that the observations made by the