SHEELA WATI Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETITES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying, inter alia, for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 27th June, 2001 issued by the office of the respondent No.1/Registrar, Cooperative Societies (for short 'the RCS') revoking the clearance of membership in respect of Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, respondent No.4 herein, conveyed vide earlier letter dated 11th January, 1999 for allotment of a plot by the respondent No.2 society (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent society') on the basis of the transfer of membership allowed by the respondent society vide resolution dated 30th April, 1978 and for declaring the petitioner to be a bona fide purchaser and owner of plot No.B-31, Ashoka Niketan, Delhi. The reason stated in the letter dated 27th June, 2001 for revocation of the membership of respondent No.4 was that the original member, one Mr.L.C.Gupta, a relative of the respondent No.4, from whom the membership was transferred in favour of respondent No.4 was holding dual membership contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as admitted by both the parties, are that one Mr.LC.Gupta was the member of Preet Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vide membership No.81, he was allotted plot No. 124, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. While continuing to be a member of the aforesaid society, Mr.LCGupta also became a member of the society vide membership No. 133 with effect from 14th December, 1965 and he continued to be a member till 30th April, 1978. In the meanwhile, Mr.L.C.Gupta and his nephew, respondent No.4 approached the society with a request to transfer his membership in favour of the respondent No.4. Alongwith the request, he and respondent No.4 filed affidavits to the effect that they did not own any other plot or house in Delhi either in their names or in the names of their spouses and dependent children. Accordingly, the respondent society transferred the membership of Mr.L.C.Gupta in the name of his nephew, i.e. respondent No.4 which was also approved by the RCS and respondent No.3/DDA. As a result, respondent No.4 was allotted plot No.B-31, Ashoka Niketan, Delhi, measuring 166.66 sq.yards in a draw of lots held on 25th May, 1999. This was followed by execution of a perpetual Sub-lease deed dated 26th November, 1999 in favour of respondent No.4. Subsequently, a vigilance enquiry was initiated and as a result of the said enquiry, it was revealed that Mr.L.C.Gupta was holding dual membership of two house building societies, as stated hereinabove. Consequently, the impugned letter dated 27th June, 2001 was addressed by the RCS to respondent No.3 pointing out the violation of Rule 28 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules') which prohibits dual membership and revoking the clearance of membership in respect of the respondent No.4.

(3.) In January, 2000, prior to the issuance of the impugned letter dated 27th June, 2001, the petitioner purchased the aforesaid plot No.B-31, Ashoka Niketan, Delhi from respondent No.4 for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. The petitioner has also stated that necessary documents relating to transfer of the plot were executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner which included a general power of attorney and a Will and that possession of the plot was in fact handed over by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner approached the MCD for obtaining an 'NOC' for the purposes of sanction of building plans. The petitioner further stated that pursuant to the plot in question being assessed for the purposes of property tax by the MCD, the petitioner also deposited property tax and transfer duty vide receipts dated 4th September and 6th September, 2001 respectively. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the revocation letter dated 27th June, 2001 issued by the RCS only by letter dated 24th September, 2001 addressed to her by respondent No.4 and immediately thereafter, she filed the present writ petition, in which vide order dated 29th October, 2001, status-quo as to possession was directed to be maintained.