RAJESH KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 5.9.2017 (Annexure P-35) upholding order dated 16.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), order dated 25.1.2005 (Annexure P-1) and also the order of allotment dated 1.3.2013 by respondent No.4-Society to respondent No. 6-Ranbir Singh. A further prayer has also been made for issuing directions to the respondents to transfer flat No. 3275, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner in view of notifications dated 7.2.2008, 15.8.2008 and 16.7.2009 issued by respondent No.1.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the petitioner in the present petition are that Swati Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') was registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Chandigarh Administration had framed a scheme known as the Chandigarh Allotment of Land to Cooperative House Building Societies Scheme, 1991 on 28.5.1991, according to which, 25% of the premium of the land was to be paid to the Chandigarh Housing Board by the Societies on behalf of the eligible members. Thereafter, the Chandigarh Administration allotted the land on chunk basis to the Chandigarh Housing Board for further allotment to the eligible Cooperative House Building Societies and accordingly the Chandigarh Housing Board allotted land to respondent-society @ Rs. 2500/- per square yard, which was later on enhanced to Rs. 2850/- per square yards, as the land was converted from lease hold to free hold. Raj Kumar Sangwan(respondent No.5) was one of the members of the said society. Some of the members could not deposit the installments well-in-time, due to which construction work of the flats came to an halt. A decision was taken by the Managing Committee of the Society that all defaulter members be issued notices to show cause as to why they should not be expelled from the membership of the society being defaulters. Notice was also issued to respondent No.5-Sh. Raj Kumar Sangwan being defaulter for not depositing the requisite installments. Thereafter another show cause notice was issued but still amount was not deposited. Thereafter, a decision was taken by the society to expell such members from the membership of the society. Said Raj Kumar Sangwan was expelled from the Society vide order dated 25.1.2005.

(3.) Aggrieved by said order, respondent No.5-Raj Kumar Sangwan filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Act before Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.1.2009. Thereafter, revision petition was filed by respondent No.5-Raj Kumar Sangwan before Adviser to Administrator, U.T., Chanidgarh, which was admitted and application for grant of stay was rejected vide order dated 21.4.2009. Said Raj Kumar Sangwan also filed C.W.P. No. 7032 of 2009 before this Court and during pendency of the said writ petition, he transferred all his rights as member in the respondent-Society to the present petitioner by executing General Power of Attorney, Will and Sale agreement, affidavit and indemnity bond by virtue of which, present petitioner had become deemed member of the respondent-Society. As per case of the petitioner, he purchased all the rights from Raj Kumar Sangwan and made payment of total amount of Rs. 28,27,724 through cheques to the society to claim entitlement of the membership and dwelling unit/flat. The defaulter members were allotted flats by rescinding order of expulsion but respondent No.5-Raj Kumar Sangwan or the present petitioner was not allotted any flat inspite of clearing installments. One such member, namely, Smt. Nirmal Dahiya also sold her rights and entitlement to one Smt. Monika, D/o Sh. Puran Chand, who is related to the President of the Society was allotted the flat. The present petitioner approached the society and requested to allot flat in his name on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Will etc. as his case was similar to said Nirmal Dahiya and Monika but the President of the Society refused to transfer the membership and allot flat to the petitioner. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 9129 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.2.2017 with a direction to the Advisor, Chandigarh Housing Board, Administration under the Act to decide the revision petition, if pending within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Thereafter review application filed by respondent No.6 was disposed of by this Court on 8.5.2017. Respondent No. 6 filed LPA No. 1018 of 2017, which was also disposed of by this Court on 3.7.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner, being attorney of Raj Kumar Sangwan, filed an application before the Advisor for amendment of title of revision No. 68 of 2009 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.9.2017.