Lt.
Col. Surinder Kumar Dutt & Ors Vs. Shakti Cooperative House Building Ltd.
& Ors [1993] INSC 54 (3 February 1993)
Jeevan
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Sharma, L.M. (Cj) Anand, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (1) 427 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 80 JT 1993 Supl. 29 1993 SCALE (1)437
ACT:
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972:
Sections
3, 40 and 55. Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules,
1973-Rule 24.
Cooperative
House Building Society-Dispute among members- Registar-Forbidding holding of
elections-High Court in Letters Patent Appeal appointing Retired High Court
Judge as Administrator-Administrator preparing list of members-Report of
Administrator assailed on ground that 'simplified procedure' indicated by
Registrar not followed--Supreme Court upholding Report of Administrator.
HEAD NOTE:
The
Cooperative House Building Society Respondent No.1 in the appeal was formed
with a view to provide house-sites to its members. A site was acquired but
before the plots could be distributed among the members, disputes arose among
them.
Various
groups in the society tried to pin control of the society's affairs and a
number of suits were filed and several interim orders obtained.
The
Registrar of Cooperative Societies found that on account of the infighting
among members the very object of the government in providing land on concessional
rate to the society stood in jeopardy-, fed up with the unending disputes he
passed an order forbidding holding of elections to the Committee of the
Society.
The
aforesaid order of the Registrar was challenged in a writ petition. The Single
Judge who heard the matter, made several attempts to resolve the differences
between the parties but found no room for any settlement. He heard the Writ
Petition and dismissed the same.
A
letters Patent Appeal was flied, the Division Beach also undertook 428 to settle the
disputes. It succeeded partially, with the consent of the parties, the Division
Bench appointed a former Judge of the High Court as the Administrator, to finalise
the list of membership. He thoroughly examined all claims and prepared a list
of 219 members, which was approved by the Court by order dated 19.8.85 and the
Administrator was directed to proceed with the allotment of plots.
Before
the aforesaid directions could be complied with certain members made an
application for review of the order dated 19.5.1986. A direction was sought
that the Administrator prepare a fresh list following the 'simplified
procedure' notified by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies through his
letter dated 5.7.1977. The Division Bench accepted the Review Petition, and
directed the Administrator by its order dated 17.5.1989 to prepare a fresh
list. The Administrator prepared a list containing 221 members, and submitted
his Report. This created a ticklish situation inasmuch as the total number of
plots available was 210 whereas the number of members eligible was 221.
Disputes again started as to the manner in which the plots should be
distributed.
The
four appellants who are members of the Society, questioned the correctness of
the Division Bench order dated 17th May, 1989 in their appeal to this Court
contending that their names were found far above serial No. 210 in the list
approved by the Court by its order dated 19th May, 1986, whereas their names came
down to 216 to 219 in the list prepared by the Administrator on the basis of
the 'simplified procedure', and that for that reason they may not be entitled
to allotment of plots.
Disposing
of the Appeal, this Court,
HELD :
1. The verification of membership has been done by the Administrator, a very
responsible person, a former Judge of the Delhi High Court. One exercise by
such a person is sufficient, two exercises are more than enough. It cannot be
an external process. It has to stop at some stage, and it should stop now. If
any person who has some claim to membership of the society has either not
chosen to come forward and put forward his claim before the Administrator in
response to the notices issued by him or has chosen not to question the
rejection of his claim by the Ad. ministrator before the Delhi High Court or
has failed to put forward his claim at least in these proceedings, it must be
presumed that he has no legitimate claim to the membership of the society.
[433B-C] 429
2.
When the society was initially formed the land allotted to it was not of much
value. Several persons who initially became members either resigned or took
back their deposits and walked out. Some did not respond to the notices of the
society, and did not remit the amounts as and when called upon. Now that the
land has become valuable, people appear to be coming forward with claims to
membership. No value can be attached to such belated claims. [433D]
3. In
response to individual and public notices issued by the Administrator, at the
time of preparing the first list, as many as 346 persons laid claim to
membership. After a thorough scrutiny the Administrator rejected a large number
of claims and finalised a list of 219 members. Even on the second occasion the
Administrator went through an elaborate exercise and finalised the list of 221
members prepared by the Administrator and appended to his 10th report. It has
to be treated as the final and conclusive list [433E-F]
4. The
Administrator shall carve out 221 plots in the place of 210 plots within a
period of two months from today, with the help of an Architect or Engineer, as
he may choose.
He
shall allot the same among the 221 members included in the second list by
adopting an appropriate method i.e., by drawal of lots or by some other fair
method. [433G, 434B]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 430 of 1993.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.89 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 149
of 1982.
M.L. Verma,
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ms. Monika Mohil and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Appellants. Awadh
Behari Rohtagi (for the Administrator). R.K. Jain, M.C. Bhandare, Mrs. Rani Chhabra,
S.K. Jain, A.K Sharma, N.S. Bisht, Sudarsh Menon, A.K. Gupta, R.P. Singh, Vijay
Panjwani (for intervener). Ashok Mathur, A.K. Srivastava and R.C. Kaushik for
the Respondents.
430
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Heard the
counsel for the parties.
Leave
granted.
Shakti
Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. was formed with a view to provide
house-sites to its members. A site was acquired by before the plots could be
distributed among the members, disputes arose among them. Various groups in the
society tried to gain control of the affairs of the society. Number of suits
were filed and several interim orders obtained. The Registrar of Cooperative
Societies found that on account of the infighting among the members the very
object of the government in providing land on confessional rate to the society
stood in jeopardy.
Evidently
fed up with the unending disputes between the members, the Registrar passed an
order forbidding holding of elections to the committee of the Society. This
order of the Registrar was challenged in the Delhi High Court by way of a writ
petition (No. 2920 of 1981). The writ petition came up for hearing before a
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, S.B. Wad, J. The learned Judge
made several attempts to resolve the differences between the parties but found
ultimately that there was no room for any settlement. He heard the writ petition
on merits and by his order dated 12.10,1982 dismissed the same. A Letters
Patent Appeal was preferred against the said order. The Division Bench too
undertook to settle the disputes among the members. It succeeded partially in
doing so inasmuch as the Bench appointed, with the consent of the parties
before it, an Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the society to finalise
the membership list and to hold elections. On election of the new committee,
the Administrator was to hangover the charge to such committee.
A
former Judge of the Delhi High Court Sri P.N. Khanna was appointed as the
Administrator. In pursuance of the said settlement, several suits pending in
the courts were withdrawn. The,, Administrator submitted his reports from time
to time. Several persons who were not parties to the proceedings came forward
claiming to be members of the society. The Administrator thoroughly examined
all claims and prepared a list of 206 members. It was approved by the court by
its order dated 19.8.1985. By this order, the Division Bench directed that no
elections need take place as originally directed and that the power of
allotment of plots be given to the said Administrator himself. This order too
appears to be made on the basis of consent of the parties before the court. The
Administrator was accordingly 431 directed to proceed with the allotment of
plots among the said 206 members. Four more members were added by a subsequent
order. Some more applications were pending at that stage before the court claiming
membership. After receiving the 7th and final report of the Administrator dated
17.5.1986, the court approved a list of 219 members by its order dated
19.5.1986. It also accepted the criteria for allotment of plots evolved by the
Administrator. It gave certain directions for the future working of the
society.
The
Registrar was asked to verify and adopt the list of members, submitted by the
Administrator, within two months.
Before
the directions of the court given on 19.5.1986 could be complied with, an
application was filed before the court by certain members for review of the
order dated 19.5.1986.
They
asked for a direction to the Administrator to prepare a fresh list of the
members following the "simplified procedure" notified by the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies through his letter dated 5.7.1977 addressed
to all the House Building Cooperative Societies in Delhi. It was submitted that
the said simplified procedure was being followed by all the Housing Societies
in Delhi and, that there is no reason why an
exception should be made in the case of this society. Under an elaborate order
dated 17th May, 1989 the Division Bench, accepted the Review Petition and
directed that Administrator to prepare a fresh list of members in accordance
with the simplified procedure and to determine the entitlement to plots in
terms of the said simplified procedure among the several members of the
society. The Administrator was asked to complete the said exercise within the
shortest possible time, to wit-two months. In accordance with the direction
dated 17th May, 1989 the Administrator prepared and submitted his 10th report
on 19th August, 1989. This list contained 221 members.
This created a ticklish situation inasmuch as the total number of plots
available was 210 whereas the number of members eligible was 221. Disputes
again started as to the manner in which the plots should be distributed among
members. Four members, appellants herein, preferred S.L.P. No. 11072 of 1989
(from which this appeal arises) questioning the correctness of the order of the
Division Bench dated 17th
May, 1989. They were
aggrieved by the fact that whereas their names were found far above serial No.
210 in the list approved by the court by its order dated 19th May, 1986, their
names came down to 216 to 219 in the list prepared by the Administrator on the
basis of simplified procedure. The available plots being 210, the logical
consequence of the said demotion was that they may not be entitled to allotment
432 of plots now. They would have to wait till the society acquires some other
land and carves out plots.
This
court too tried to bring about the settlement between the parties but to no
avail. The order dated 19.8.1992 passed by this court shows that all efforts at
compromise between the parties failed. Accordingly, the matter was directed to
be posted for hearing on merits.
Before
us, however, all the parties present suggested a solution which has appealed to
us. The suggestion is that in place of 210 plots, the Administrator should,
with the help of an Architect, carve out 221 plots and allot the same to all
the 221 members included in the list appended to the 10th report of the
Administrator. The said list of 221, it is suggested, should be treated as
final. But before we could accept the said suggestion, we wanted to satisfy
ourselves that the list prepared by the Administrator was a properly prepared
one. For this purpose, we have looked into the proceedings leading to the
preparation of both the lists by the Administrator the two lists being (1) the
list containing 219 names which was accepted by the court on 19th May, 1986 and (2) the list of 221 members
appended to the 10th report. The material placed before us discloses that the
Administrator had followed an elaborate, exhaustive and fair procedure before
preparing the list of 219 members which we may refer to hereinafter as the
'first list'. He looked into the records of the society, other relevant
material and issued notices to all those persons who appeared to him to have
any claim to the membership of the society. The Administrator also published a
notice in the newspaper calling upon persons having a claim to the membership
of the said society to come forward and establish their claim before him.
Number
of claims were received. He made a thorough enquiry and on that basis prepared
the first list. Even for preparing the second list, the Administrator has taken
a good amount of trouble and finalised it with the help of the authorities of
the cooperative department. It is true that the second list contains two more
names over and above. the first list but what is significant is that all the
219 members included in the first list also find place in the second list. The
only variation is that the second list contains two more names over and above
the 219 included in the first list but with changed serial numbers.
This
has made our task easy. Even Mr. Sanwal (11th respondent in this appeal) who
appeared in person and who claimed to be one of the founder-members of the
society, also expressed his agreement to the said suggestion. Mr. Sanwal,
however, 433 suggested that there may be some more persons, atleast four, who
may have some claim to membership. We are not satisfied. The verification of
membership has been done by a very responsible person, a former Judge of Delhi
High Court. One exercise by such a person is sufficient and two exercise are
more than enough. It cannot be an eternal process. It has to stop at some
stage. And we think, it would stop now. If any person who has some claim to
membership of the society has either not chosen to come forward and put forward
his claim before the Administrator in response to the notices issued by him or
has chosen not to question the rejection of his claim by the Administrator
before the Delhi High Court or has failed to put forward his claim atleast in
these proceedings, we must presume that he has no legitimate claim to the
membership of the society.
It
appears that when the society was initially formed the land allotted to it was
not of much value. Several persons who initially became members either resigned
or took back their deposits and walked out. Some did not respond to the notices
of the society and did not remit the amounts as and when called upon. Now that
the land has become valuable, people appear to be coming forward with claims to
membership. No value can be attached to such belated claims. Indeed, it appears
that in response to individual and public notices issued by the Administrator,
at the time of preparing the first list, as many as 346 persons laid claim to
membership. After a thorough scrutiny the Administrator rejected a large number
of claims and finalised a list of 219 members. Even on the second occasion the
Administrator went through an elaborate exercise and finalised the list 221
members including the 219 contained in the first list. In the circumstances, we
treat the Est of 221 members prepared by the Administrator and appended to his
10th report, which we are referring to as the second list, as the final and
conclusive list. We direct the learned Administrator to carve out 221 plots out
of the land allotted to the society in place of the present 210 plots. The 221
plots must conform to the categories in which 221 members are placed. In other
words, all the 221 members in the list accepted by us should be provided with a
plot each. The Administrator may carry out the said direction with the help of
an Architect or Engineer, as he may choose.
One of
the counsel contended before us that some of the members in the second fist have
meanwhile acquired some other plots or houses in the city and thereby have
incurred a disqualification. We do not wish to 434 entertain 'any such dispute
or do we propose to allow any revision of the said fig of 221 members.
We
direct that the Administrator shall carve out the said 221 plots as directed
herein, within a period of two months from today. He shall allot the same among
the 221 members included in the second list by adopting an appropriate method
i.e., by drawal of lots or by some other fair method.
We
make it clear that even if any claims for membership are pending before the
Delhi High Court and even if any of such claims are accepted, such members have
to await their turn till the society acquires fresh land, if any. They shall
not be entitled to claim any plot out of the present side.
Post
for further orders after three months i.e., on 30th April, 1993.
N.V.K.
Appeal disposed of.
Back