VIJAY BANSAL Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY COOPERATION PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders as passed by respondent No.1 whereby the order passed by the authorities concerned have upheld the cancellation of the plot of the petitioner in a Society.

(2.) In brief the facts as stated are that the petitioner became a member of respondent No.5, a Society which is a Co-operative House Building Society and was allotted plot No.374-D measuring 256 square yards by allotment letter dtd. 15/10/1994. The entire price of the plot was paid by the petitioner to the Society. Thereafter possession was handed over and the petitioner got a boundary wall constructed and got a gate erected in the said plot. On 1/8/2008, the husband of the petitioner visited the said plot and was informed by the society that the plot allotted to the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner then filed a petition under Sec. 55/56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') before respondent No.4, namely, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Ludhiana. Respondent No.4 came to the conclusion that the plot was cancelled due to non-payment of development charges. Respondent No.4 also concluded that the society had treated the petitioner arbitrarily and no opportunity was given by the society to the member to pay the development charges, as demanded. The cancellation of the plot was also not informed to the petitioner and it was noticed that within two months of the cancellation it stood allotted to another person. As per the award of the Arbitrator, the society was directed to accept the amounts due from the petitioner along with 12% interest and upheld the allotment of the plot and the same stand deposited. The award was challenged by the Satluj Co-operative House Building Society under Sec. 68 of the Act of 1961 before the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana. The appeal was dismissed by order dtd. 29/9/2009, which order was then challenged by the Society in revision petition No.7/2010 under Sec. 69 of the Act of 1961 before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies Punjab. In fact, the revision petition was filed by Sh. Pawan Jindal, Ex-President of the Society, Tilak Raj Saini, DK Gupta, Punit Bansal, Ex-Committee members and the Society was arrayed a petitioner No.5. During the course of the proceedings before Respondent No.2, the Society withdrew from the petition. This revision petition was accepted vide order dtd. 3/5/2010 on the ground that adequate public notice had been issued in 2 newspapers wherein full particulars had been given of all those persons who were defaulters and had not complied with clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter which clearly specified that the development charges of the land was to be paid as and when asked for the society, otherwise the allotment of the plot shall stand cancelled. The name of the petitioner was duly reflected in the public notice. The petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Secretary Cooperation Punjab, Chandigarh, who affirmed the order dtd. 3/5/2010. Aggrieved against the orders whereby the plot of the petitioner stands cancelled, the instant petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would argue that the action of the society in cancelling the plot is totally unjustified as no adequate notice was given. It is submitted that the petitioner herein was never served with any notice regarding demand of additional sum on account of development charges, notice to start construction of the house within 6 months nor any demand notice to deposit the difference in share money or face expulsion from the membership under bye-laws No.11 (a) a clause (ii) of the society. In this regard, he relies upon the documents annexed with the written statement itself as Annexures R-5/1, R- 5/5 and R-5/6 which reflect that the complete address was not written therein. It is argued that in case the society had to make recovery of any dues from the petitioner, it should have resorted to filing a petition under sec. 55 of the Act of 1961 before the Registrar instead of cancelling the plot in question. It is also submitted that since the Society itself withdrew from the proceedings before the Revisional Authority, no orders could have been passed on a petition filed at the behest of the Ex-Committee members who were not parties before the Appellate Authority.