[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Panna Lal Kapoor Since Deceased Through ... vs Registrar Of Cooperative Societies & ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~57 & 58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16th April, 2026
Uploaded on: 18th April, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & CM APPL. 28525/2024
PANNA LAL KAPOOR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE PARVEEN KAPOOR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Mr. Chirag
Goyal, Ms. Manika Mudgal, Advs.
with petitioner in person.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
~58
+ W.P.(C) 6845/2024 & CM APPL. 28530/2024
PAWAN KAPOOR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Mr. Chirag
Goyal, Ms. Manika Mudgal, Advs.
with Petitioner in person.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are two petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution
of India, inter alia, challenging the orders dated 18th October, 2011 passed
by the Financial Commissioner in Case No. 412/2010-CA and Case No.
412/2010-CA in the Revision petitions filed by the Petitioners under Section
80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act 1972. Challenge is also to the order
dated 9th January, 2024 also passed by the Financial Commissioner in Review
petition being Case No. 102/2019 and Case No. 103/2019 filed under Section
115 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003.
3. The brief background of the present petitions is that there were three
brothers - Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor, Mr. Panna Lal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar
Lal Kapoor.
4. Two brothers viz., Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal
Kapoor were members of the Respondent No. 2-Arawali Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter 'Society'). The membership was obtained
by Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor in the year 1996.
In 2001, Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor transferred his membership to his brother
namely, Mr. Panna Lal Kapoor i.e., the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6843/2024. Mr.
Manohar Lal Kapoor transferred his membership to his son namely, Mr.
Pawan Kapoor i.e., the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6845/2024.
5. Mr. Panna Lal Kapoor was allotted flat bearing No. A-4 in the Society
and Mr. Pawan Kapoor was allotted flat bearing No. H-101 in the Society. A
complaint was filed by Respondent No. 3 - Mr. Ashok Aggarwal that the
allotment of the Petitioners is liable to be cancelled on the ground that on the
date when the Petitioners' predecessors, i.e., Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr.
Manohar Lal Kapoor obtained the membership of the Society, they and their
wives were co-owners of property bearing no. BM - 44, Shalimar Bagh, West,
Delhi. Therefore, the disqualification under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Rules, 1973 was attracted. In view thereof, the allotment deserves
to be cancelled as per the complainant.
6. Pursuant to the said complaint, Show Cause Notices (hereinafter,
'SCNs') were issued to both the Petitioners on 12th November, 2002 and the
replies to the said SCNs were filed by the Petitioners respectively.
7. The Registrar Cooperative Societies (hereinafter, 'RCS') passed an
order on 18th April, 2004 and 18th May, 2004 holding that the membership of
Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor was liable to be cancelled.
The findings of the RCS were that Mr. Kewal Kapoor, Mr. Manohar Lal
Kapoor and their wives owned half share in the property, therefore the
proviso to Sub-Rule of 25(1)(i)(c) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules,
1973 would not be applicable. The findings of the RCS in the order dated 18th
April, 2004 in W.P.(C) 6843/2024 are set out below:
"In the instant case the transferor Mr. Kewal
Krishan Kapoor was holding property No. BM 44,
Shalimar Bagh (WEST) measuring 207 sq metres in
his own name and in the name of his wife Smt
Promila Kapoor to the extent of ½ consolidated
share (103.5 sq mtrs) at the time of transfer of
membership in the name of the respondent Shri
Panna Lal Kapoor and got the membership
transferred by furnishing false affidavits supported
by indemnity bonds to keep the lessor fully
indemnified against such transfer. The fact remains
that the transferor and his spouse were co-owners
and in possession of ½ share of Property No BM-44
Shalimar Bagh (West), Delhi measuring 207 sq mts
at the time of transfer of membership in the name of
Respondent on the basis of General Power of
Attorney and agreement for sale since July, 2985
and he was at liberty to get the conveyance deed
executed at this convenience which he preferred to
get done only on 16th May, 2000. The respondent
has tried to create a cloud over the illegal
membership of Mr Kewal Krishan Kapoor by
getting the same transferred in his name in
connivance of each other with ulterior motives and
dishonest intentions. The respondent is also not
covered by the proviso to Sub-rule 25(1) (i) (c) as
the consolidate share of the transferor jointly with
his wife was more than the permissible limit of 66.72
sq metres. Thus the plea taken by the respondent is
otherwise dishonest to his own knowledge and
directly in contravention to the records placed in file
and is thus liable to be rejected.
I have gone through the records available on file
heard the oral as well as written submissions of both
the parties. Rule 25 (1) (c) (i) of the D.C.S Rules,
1973 prohibits a person from becoming a member
of a housing society who owns a residential house
or a plot of land for the construction of residential
house either in his own name or in the name of
his/her spouse or in the name of any of his
dependent children, on lease hold or freehold basis
or on power of attorney or on agreement for sale,
provided further that the said disqualification of
membership as laid down in sub-rule (1) (c) (i) of
Rule 25 shall not be applicable in case of co-shares
of property whose share is less than 66.72 sq metres
of land. The respondent is also not covered by the
proviso to Sub-rule 25(1)(i)(c) as the consolidate
share of the transferor jointly with his wife was
more than the permissible limit of 66.72 sq metres.
Thus the plea taken by the respondent is otherwise
dishonest to his own knowledge and directly in
contravention to the records placed in file and is
thus liable to be rejected.
Sub-rule of Rule 25 also provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or
the bye-laws of the co-operative society, if a member
becomes, or has already become, subject to any
disqualifications specified in sub-rule (1), he shall
be deemed to have ceased to be a member from the
date when disqualifications were incurred. In the
instant case the original allotee Shri Kewal
Krishan Kapoor was disqualified to remain as
member of the society under Rule 25 of the DCS
Rules, 1973 at the time of transfer of membership
in the name of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor and a such
the membership of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor is liable
to be ceased.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case I. N. Diwakar, Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, GNCTD of Delhi, hereby cease the
membership of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor having
membership No. 200 in Arawali Co-operative
Group Housing Society Ltd. u/r 25 of D.C.S Rules,
1973 with immediate effect and the society is
directed to take necessary steps for the compliance
of this order. "
8. The findings of the RCS in the order dated 18th May, 2004 in W.P.(C)
6845/2024 are set out below:
" In the instant case the transferor Shri Manohar
Lal Kapoor was holding property No. BM-44
Shalimar Bagh (West) measuring 207 sq meters in
his own name and in the name of his wife Smt. Neena
Kapoor to the extent of ½
consolidated share (103.5 sq meters) at the time of
transfer of membership in the name of the
respondent Shri Pawan Kapoor and got the
membership transferred by furnishing false
affidavits supported by indemnity bonds to keep the
lessor fully indemnìfied against such transfer. The
fact remains that the transferor and his spouse were
co-owners and in possession of Property No. BM-
44, Shalimar Bagh (West), Delhi measuring 207 sq.
mts of the time of transfer of membership in the
name of Respondent on the basis of General Power
of Attorney and agreement for sale since July, 1985
and were at liberty to get the conveyance deed
executed of their convenience which they preferred
to get done only on 16th May, 2000. The respondent
has tried to create a cloud over the illegal
membership of Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor by gett¡ng
the same transferred in his name in connivance of
each other with ulterior motives and dishonest
intentions. The respondent is also not covered by
the proviso to Sub-rule 25 (1) (i) (c) as the
consolidate share of the transferor jointly with his
wife was more than the permissible limìt of 66.72
sq. meters. Thus the plea taken by the respondent
is otherwise dishonest to his own knowledge and
directly in contravention to the records placed in
file and is thus liable to be rejected.
I have gone through the records available on file,
heard the oral as well as written submissions of both
the parties. Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of Delhi cooperative
Societies Rules, 1973 prohibits a person from
becoming a member of a housing society, who owns
a residential house or a plot of land for the
construction of a residential house either in his own
name or in the name of his/her spouse or in the name
of any of his dependent children, on lease hold or
freehold basis or on power of attorney or an
agreement for same, provided further that the said
disqualification of membership as laid down in sub-
rule(1)(c)(i) of Rule 25 shall not be applicable in
case of co-shares of property whose share is less
than 66.72 sq. metres of land. The respondent is
also not covered by the proviso to Sub-Rule
25(1)(i)(c) as the consolidate share of the
transferor jointly with his wife was more than
permissible limit of 66.72 sq. meters. Thus the plea
taken by the respondent is otherwise dishonest to
his own knowledge and directly in contravention to
the records placed in file and is thus liable to be
rejected.
Sub-rule 2 of Rule 25 also provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or
the byelaws of the co-operative society, if a member
becomes, or has already become, subject to any
disqualifications specified in sub-rule(1), he shall be
deemed to have ceased to be a member from the date
when disqualifications were incurred. In the instant
case the original allottee Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor
was disqualìfied to remain as member of the society
under Rule 25 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules,
1973 at the time of transfer of membership in the
name of Shri Pawan Kapoor and as such the
membership of Shri Pawan Kapoor is liable to be
ceased.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case I, N. Diwakar, Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, GNCT of Delhi, hereby cease the
membership of Shri Pawan Kapoor having
membership No.57, in Arawali Co-operative Group
Housing Society Ltd. u/r 25 of Delhi Cooperative
Societies Rules, 1973 with immediate effect and the
society is directed to take necessary steps for the
compliance of this order.
Announced."
9. These orders were challenged by the Petitioners before the Financial
Commissioner, who also came to the same conclusion and held that it has not
been established that Smt. Parmila Kapoor, wife of Shri. Kewal Kapoor and
Smt. Neena Kapoor, wife of Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor had the resources to
purchase one-fourth of the property i.e., BM - 44, Shalimar Bagh, West, Delhi
in their own right. The finding therefore, was that Smt. Parmila Kapoor-
Shri.Kewal Kapoor and Smt. Neena Kapoor- Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor
together owned more than half the property and hence, the disqualification
was attracted. A review petition was filed in respect of the said orders dated
18th October, 2011 which was also dismissed on 9th January, 2024.
10. The submission of Mr. Malhotra, ld. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners is that the disqualification would not be attracted as firstly, the
one-fourth share of the house in Shalimar Bagh was duly reflected in the
Wealth Tax returns of the wives and secondly, in any case the area of the said
one-fourth share would be less than 66.72 sq. metre.
11. Further it is submitted that the Respondent No. 3 was a chronic litigant
who had filed baseless complaints against the Petitioners. It is also argued that
since inception, the Petitioners have been in possession of the aforementioned
flats.
12. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench Court
in R.K. Aggarwal v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
MANU/DE/1116/2023 wherein the Court has held that the phrase 'in the
name of' has been interpreted in the decision in Alimuddin v. The Registrar
of Cooperative Societies & Ors., MANU/DE/1001/1996 and for the said
disqualification to be attracted, the property has to be in the name of the
allottee itself. Ld. Counsel submits that even if the property is held to be
benami in the name of the wife, the disqualification would not be attracted.
13. As against Mr. Malhotra's submissions, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, ld.
Counsel for the RCS submits that on facts, the Financial Commissioner had
come to the conclusion that the source of funds was not shown and in fact, the
Financial Commissioner has analysed the record and arrived at the factual
finding that the property belonged to Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar
Lal Kapoor and not to their wives. Thus, according to Mr. Sharma, the
disqualification is attracted and the impugned orders do not deserve to the be
interfered with.
14. The Court has considered the matter. Firstly, it is relevant to point out
that the allegation in this case is that the original membership of Mr. Kewal
Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor deserves to be cancelled. The
membership of Mr. Kewal Kapoor was transferred to his brother i.e., Panna
Lal Kapoor and the membership of Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor was transferred
to his son i.e., Pawan Kapoor. The flats were allotted in 2001 and for the last
25 years, the flats have been in their possession. The allegation that the
disqualification was attracted by the original member has been considered in
this context inasmuch as the present members are not attracted with the same
disqualification.
15. The Financial Commissioner has considered the Income Tax and
Wealth Tax returns but has held that it has not been proved on record that
Smt. Parmila Kapoor and Smt. Neena Kapoor were independent legal entities.
The property in Shalimar Bagh was purchased in 1985. The production of the
bank statements, etc. could not have been expected as almost 20 years had
passed. The Wealth Tax returns which have been placed on record clearly
reflect that one-fourth of the property is standing in the name of Smt. Parmila
Kapoor and Smt. Neena Kapoor. Despite the returns having demonstrated to
have been in the names of the wives, the conclusion on facts that the amount
for the same could have been paid by Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar
Lal Kapoor would be in the realm of speculation. There is no evidence to the
effect that either Smt. Parmila Kapoor or Smt. Neena Kapoor did not have
the resources or that they did not make the payment for the one-fourth share.
16. The Court has to go by the Income Tax returns and Wealth Tax returns
which are on record which clearly shows that the Smt. Parmila Kapoor and
Smt. Neena Kapoor owned one-fourth share of the Shalimar Bagh property
respectively. Moreover, even insofar as the disqualification itself is
concerned, there is an exemption in the Proviso to Rule 25 (1) C of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. The said proviso reads as under :
"Rule 25:
Disqualification of membership
(1) No person shall be eligible for admission as a
member of a cooperative Society if he......
(a) ...............
(b)..................
(c) In the case of membership of a Housing Society:
(i) He owns a residential house or a plot of
land for the construction of a residential
house in any of the approved or unapproved
colonies or other localities in the Union
Territory of Delhi in his own name or in the
name of his spouse or any of his dependent
children on lease hold or free hold basis:
provided, disqualification as laid down in
Sub-rule (1)(c)(i) shall not be applicable in
case of persons who are only cosharers of
joint ancestral properties in congested
localities (Slum Area) whose share is less
than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) of land."
17. A perusal of the above would show that if the share of the property is
less than 66.72 sq. metre, the disqualification would not be attracted. The
share of Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor is less than 66.72
sq. metres in the Shalimar Bagh property. Thus, on both these grounds, the
original membership of Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor is
not in jeopardy.
18. The Proviso thus supports the case of Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr.
Manohar Lal Kapoor and therefore, the disqualification is meritless. This
Court in various other decisions has taken a view that the property has to be
in the name of the person who has applied for membership It was held in R.K.
Aggarwal (Supra), by the Ld. Division Bench as under:
"15. Reference may next be made to J.K. Gupta,
Dr. Vs. Registrar of Coop. Societies & Ors., 2010
(116) DRJ 131 (DB). In the aforesaid case, a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India was preferred for quashing of order dated
15.05.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner,
Delhi upholding the order dated 05.07.2001 passed
by respondent No.1 Registrar of Cooperative
Societies ceasing the membership of petitioner with
respondent No.2 Society. The petitioner therein was
enrolled as a member of respondent No.2 Society
vide decision of Managing Committee dated
25.10.1990. A show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner alleging that his wife owned a property at
Multani Dhanda, New Delhi which was a
disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c) of DCS Rules,
1973. It was claimed by the petitioner that the same
was purchased by his wife from her own funds in her
own name and the said property was commercial
and of small size and as such disqualification under
Rule 25 was not attracted. However, the respondent
ceased the membership of the petitioner vide order
dated 05.07.2001, against which a revision was
preferred under Section 80 of the DCS Act, 1972
before the Financial Commissioner on 23.08.2001.
The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision
petition vide order dated 17.08.2007 upholding the
finding of RCS.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that
membership of the petitioner could not have been
ceased under Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of the Rules, had the
property at Multani Dhanda been owned by the
petitioner in his own name or in the name of his wife.
It was further contended that the phrase "in the
name of" as stated in Rule 25(1)(c)(i) means
ownership must be of the member though it may
stand benami in the name of his wife or child and
reliance was placed upon Alimuddin Vs. The
Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors., C.W.P.
No.5551/1993 reported in 63 (1996) Delhi Law
Times 655 (DB).
The said contentions were opposed on behalf of the
Respondent contending that bye-laws of the Society
did not permit the Petitioner to become its member.
The observations of the Division Bench in para 6 &
7 may be beneficially reproduced:
"6. We have considered the submissions
made and perused the record. The relevant
portion of Rule 25 of the Rules under which
petitioner is sought to be disqualified is
reproduced as under:- "Rule 25:
Disqualification of membership
(1) No person shall be eligible for
admission as a member of a cooperative
Society if he......
(a) ...............
(b)..................
(c) In the case of membership of a Housing
Society:
(i) He owns a residential house or a plot of
land for the construction of a residential
house in any of the approved or
unapproved colonies or other localities in
the Union Territory of Delhi in his own
name or in the name of his spouse or any of
his dependent children on lease hold or free
hold basis:
provided, disqualification as laid down in
Sub-rule (1)(c)(i) shall not be applicable in
case of persons who are only cosharers of
joint ancestral properties in congested
localities (Slum Area) whose share is less
than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) of
land."
Rule 25(1)(c)(i) has been interpreted in three
decisions of this court,
i.e., O.P. Sethi v Lt. Governor
MANU/DE/0678/1991 : 45(1991)DLT 426,
Navjeevan Co-operative House Building Society Ltd
v Delhi Cooperative Tribunal : CWP 3150/1985
decided on 10.07.1987 and Shri Sita Ram Jain v
Registrar of Co-operative Societies : CWP
3203/1992 decided on 15.11.1995.
Relying on the aforesaid judgments, a Division
Bench of this court in Alimuddin's case (supra)
observed as under:-
"The view taken by this Court has been that to
attract the applicability of Rule 25(1)(c)(i), the
member of the Society must own a residential
house or a plot of land for the construction of a
house in his own name or in the name of his
spouse or a dependent child. The phrase "in the
name of" has been interpreted to mean the
ownership must be of the member though it may
stand Benami in the name of the wife or a child."
We have also followed the same view in two
cases decided by us recently which are as
under:-
(i) Jagdish Chander v Lt Governor and Ors,
W.P.(C) No. 1646/1995 decided on
22.07.2009 and,
(ii) Krishan Kumar Sachan v The Lt
Governor and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 417/1995
decided on 10.08.2009.
7. In the present case, the membership of the
petitioner has been ceased by respondent no. 1
by holding that property bearing no. 8315,
Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi is held
by petitioner as "Benami" and therefore the
disqualification as stated in Rule 25(1)(c)(i) is
attracted in the present case. The said finding
is also upheld by the Financial Commissioner,
Delhi vide impugned order dated 15.05.2008.
It may be mentioned that the petitioner has
throughout contended before the respondent
no. 1 and Financial Commissioner as well as
stated in reply to the show cause notice that the
said property is in the name of his wife who has
purchased it from her own funds. There is an
affidavit of the petitioner and his wife before
the respondent no. 1 in this regard. Petitioner
has also categorically stated in the affidavit
that his wife is the owner of the same and she
has purchased it from her own resources.
Petitioner has also placed on record Income
Tax Returns of his wife to substantiate the
same. Petitioner has also placed on record
material to show that the said property is
assessed in the name of his wife and in the
records of the municipal authorities, the same
is mutated in her name. "Agreement to sell" of
the property in question is in the name of his
wife. But none of these aspects have been
considered by the respondent no. 1 or by the
Financial Commissioner. The other contention
of petitioner is that said property is commercial
in nature and, in any event, provisions of Rule
25 of the Rules are not attracted in the present
case. In support of his contention, petitioner
has relied upon notice issued by the DDA to the
previous owner of the property under Section
7(3) of Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupant) Act. The said notice
shows that property is commercial in nature.
There is also no finding on aforesaid
contentions of petitioner - i.e., about nature of
property i.e. whether the same is
residential/commercial and as regards the
funds as to who had purchased it. The
contention that the finding about size of the
property is not being given by respondent no. 1
and Financial Commissioner is immaterial in
as much as it is not the stand of petitioner that
property in question is coming as a share of
joint ancestral property. We have perused the
"Agreement to Sell" in respect of property in
question. The same shows that property is a
"house". Even considering the property in
question to be residential, the finding given in
the impugned order that same is held by the
petitioner as "Benami is not based on any
material on record. Rather, evidence on record
is to the contrary. The same shows property in
question is purchased by the petitioner's wife
out of her own funds and the same stands in her
own name. The present case is fully covered by
the judgment in Alimuddin's case (supra). It
may also be mentioned that proceedings have
been initiated against petitioner for cessation
of membership on the ground of ownership of
house in the name of his wife in her own
capacity. The respondents were not justified in
doing so. In view of the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the view that
disqualification as held in the impugned order
under Rule 25 of the Rules is not attracted in
the present case..."
In view of above, it was held that the petitioner did
not incur any disqualification under Rule
25(1)(c)(i). The orders passed by the FC and RCS
were accordingly set aside."
19. Following the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the
disqualification is not attracted even in the present case. Accordingly, the
orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 18th October, 2011 and 9 th
January, 2024 and the orders of the RCS dated 18th April, 2004 and 18th May,
2004 are set aside.
20. The Society has also not filed any reply in the present case. The
allotment in favour of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor and Shri Pawan Kapoor shall
now proceed forward.
21. Accordingly, subject to the Petitioners having cleared all the
maintenance and other charges payable to the Society, let the Society
recommend the name of the Petitioners to the Delhi Development Authority
(hereinafter, 'DDA') for the allotment of the flats in favour of the Petitioners.
22. The Petitioners are also free to apply to the DDA for conversion from
the lease hold to free hold, if so advised.
23. The petitions are allowed in above terms. Pending applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2026/ys/ck
