Delhi High Court
Rakesh Yadav vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies & Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5594/2024 & CM APPL. 23072/2024
RAKESH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Tomar, Advocate
versus
REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
& ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel
Counsel with Mr. Jatin Dua,
Advocate for R-1
% Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated
19th December, 2023, passed by the Financial Commissioner in Review
Petition bearing Case No. 174/2022, order dated 08th September, 2022,
passed by Financial Commissioner in Revision Petition bearing Case No.
337/2018 and the order dated 18th June, 2018 passed by the Registrar
Cooperative Societies ('RCS') in Case No. 20/2013.
2. The RCS vide order dated 18th June, 2018, had dismissed the claim of
the Petitioner herein holding that the membership no. 106 of Respondent
No. 2 i.e., Om Satyam Cooperative Group Housing Society ('the society'),
standing in name of Respondent No. 3 herein is benami for and on behalf of
the Petitioner. The RCS held that Respondent No.3 is a valid member
against membership no. 106 in Respondent No.2 society. Subsequently, the
revision petition and review against the revision petition filed by the
Petitioner have been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order
dated 08th September, 2022 and 19th December, 2023 respectively, upholding
the said order of the RCS.
3. It is the Petitioner's case that since the construction work for
developing dwelling units in Respondent No.2 society was allotted to the
company of Petitioner's brother, he was given an offer to take membership
(benami) in the Society in the name of any third party. He states that he
elected to nominate his employee i.e., Respondent No. 3, as a member of the
Society to hold the membership benami for and on behalf of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner claims that it was him, who made entire payments towards
admission fee, share money, land cost and cost of construction of
Respondent No.2 society and not Respondent No.3 herein. He claims that
thus, the flat in Respondent No. 2 society should have been allotted in his
name against membership no. 106 and not in favour of Respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the finding of the
Financial Commissioner in the order dated 19th December, 2023, at
paragraph 11 to contend that the bank statements of the Petitioner and
Respondent No. 3 clearly evidence that the monies used by Respondent No.
3 to make payment to the Society were all credited in his bank account by
the Petitioner herein.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we find no merits
in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. The Petitioner admits that the entire payment made to the Society for
membership no. 106 was made from the personal bank account of
Respondent No. 3. These payments include payments towards admission
fee, share money, land cost and cost of construction. In view of this
admission, the finding of the RCS and the Financial Commissioner
upholding the membership of Respondent No. 3 does not merit any
interference in this petition.
7. The contention of the Petitioner that the RCS should examine the
source of the funds in the bank account of Respondent No. 3 held with ICICI
Bank and Bank of Maharashtra is without any merit and has no basis in law.
The satisfaction recorded by RCS on the basis of the bank statements of
Respondent No. 3 held with ICICI Bank that all payments were made to the
Society directly by Respondent No. 3 is in accordance with law.
8. On the contrary, the contention of the Petitioner that he made
payments to Respondent No. 3 for acquiring the membership of Respondent
No. 2 and towards the cost of the flat for the benefit of Petitioner, if accepted
would mean that the pleaded transaction is a benami transaction. The
Petitioner's claim to enforce any right in respect of the membership and the
concerned flat is hit by Section 4(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act, 1988. Thus, the RCS and the Financial Commissioner
have rightly rejected the claim of membership and entitlement to a flat made
by the Petitioner herein.
9. The Petitioner has relied1 upon the bank statements of his accounts in
Bank of Maharashtra, ICICI Bank and Axis Bank to assert that it was the
funds transferred by him to the bank account of Respondent No. 3 which
formed the basis of the consideration amount paid to the Society towards the
membership and the flat. Though, there is no finding in favour of the
Petitioner by the Financial Commissioner confirming that payments were
indeed made by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 3, assuming the same to be
correct, the only remedy available to the Petitioner is to file appropriate
proceedings for recovery of the amounts advanced in accordance with law.
However, the Petitioner cannot maintain a claim of ownership to the flat.
10. We, accordingly, find no merit in the present petition and the same is
dismissed along with pending application.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 23, 2024/msh/aa
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
In the Review Petition bearing Case No. 174/2022
