Holding

The settlement agreement and the statutory rules are binding on the society; any person who previously received a house or plot from the Department of Rehabilitation, or who misrepresented such facts, is disqualified from further allotment, and the society cannot alter membership seniority or deny membership without complying with the procedural requirements, and original seniority must be restored when expulsion orders are set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society concerning the eligibility of its members for plot allotments. The Court held that the settlement agreement entered into during a prior Special Leave Petition, together with the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation & Compensation) Act, 1954 and Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, categorically disqualified any person who had earlier received a house or plot from the Department of Rehabilitation, or who concealed such fact in affidavits, from receiving another plot. It further ruled that mere payment of money without a formal application and affidavit does not make a person a member, and that the society cannot alter a member’s seniority without proper notice or impleading the affected party. Where expulsion orders were set aside, the original seniority must be restored. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s contrary orders, and restored the original seniority of the affected members.

Issues considered

The applicability and binding nature of the settlement agreement and its eligibility criteria to the society’s allotment of plots.
Whether a member who previously received a house/plot from the Department of Rehabilitation is disqualified from further allotment.
The effect of false or concealed affidavits on a member’s eligibility.
Whether a deposit of money without a formal application and affidavit confers membership rights.
The validity of the High Court’s alteration of seniority lists without proper notice or impleading the concerned member.
The consequences of setting aside expulsion orders on the restoration of original seniority.

Legislation cited

Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973s. Rule 25

Subjects

DisqualificationCooperative SocietyMembership eligibilityPlot allotmentFalse affidavitSeniorityExpulsionAgreement bindingDelhi Cooperative Societies RulesDisplaced Persons Act

Judgment

SH. O.P. CHOUDHRY A
V.

REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE
BUILDING SOCIETY AND ORS .
.
APRIL 2, 2003
B
[S. RAJENDRA BABU ANI' G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, 1954-Delhi
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973-Rule 25-Allotment ofplot to co-operative
society-Society to provide plots for tPhabilitating displaced persons-
c
Eligibility for allotment ofplots from societ~· ascertained by the Rules, by-laws
of society and agreement in a previous litigation-Allotments made in
contravention ofascertained eligibility criteria-Disqualification ofmembers-
Justification of-Held: In the facts of the r:7se disqualification justified as the
allotments were not in conformity with the eligibility criteria-Demand of D

-
membership ofsociety-Appropriateness of-Held: In the facts of the case the
' demand is not justified-lntcr-se seniority between members-Seniority of
member, who had filed applicatwn for membership earlier in point of time,
altered by High Court without notice-Justification of-Held: In the facts of
the case altering ofseniority not justified-Expulsion ofmember-Subsequently
expulsion order set aside-Seniority-Grant Of-From subsequent date- E
Demand of original seniority-Held: Once the expulsion order is set aside,
.. the member is entitled to original seniority.

Some land, out of compensation pool, comprising of evacuee property
and properties acquired by Government for rehabilitating displaced
F
persons, was allotted under Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and
I . Compensation) Act, 1954 to a cooperative society. The society was
iQcorporated, with the objed of providing plots and houses to the
,,-
employees and ex-employees of the Ministry of Rehabilitation and its
subordinate offices. Rule 25 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973,
bye-laws of society, and a settlement arrived at during the pendency of a G
Special Leave Petition in an earlier litigation concerning allotment of the
land, ascertained the eligibility or disqualification of a member to get a
plot from the society. A member of the society who himself or herself or
through his parents, husband/wife, chilJren etc. had obtained any house
or plot from the Department of Rehabilitation earlier, or a member, who
r 309
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A already owned a plot or house in his own name or in the name of his wife
or dependents anywhere in Delhi, was not entitled for allotment of a plot
in the developed land.

B
In civil appeal Nos. 2634-2635 of 7.003, 2643 of 2003 and 2644 of
2003, appellant-allotees were held disqualified for allotment of plot on the
ground that they were earlier allotted property from the Department of
..
Rehabilitation.

In Civil appeal No. 2642 of 2003, appellant was disqualified on the
ground that her husband was holding property in Delhi and she repeatedly
filed false affidavit to the effect that neither she nor her husband owned
c urban plot in Delhi.

In Civil Appeal No. 2641 of2003 appellant disputed that he was not
given initial membership of the society despite his having deposited a sum
with the Ministry of Rehabilitation. It was held that his having been
D admitted as a member of the society does not arise as he had not submitted
a formal application for enrolment as a member of the society and the
necessary affidavit. Moreover, he himself was not pursuing the litigation.
>
•
In Civil Appeal No. 2645 of 2003, 2646 of 2003 and 6979 of 2001,
'S' had filed application for becoming member of the society prior to 'K'.
E Application of 'S' was also approved prior to that of 'K'. Managing
Committee as well as the Administrator approved the name of 'S' as
member of the society. In writ petition filed by 'K' before High Court
appellant 'S' was not made party. High Court had interchanged the
seniority position of 'S' and 'K' showing 'K' at serial No. 33 and 'S' at
•
serial No. 34.
F
The grievance of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 2647-2649 of
2003 was that their names were not included in the draw of lots and no
plots were allotted to them. They alleged that they had sent a letter to tl)e
society to do the needful. Writ petitions filed by them before High Court
G were dismissed.

In Civil Appeal No~. 2650, 2651 and 2652 of 2003, expulsion orders
passed against the appellant was set aside by Courts. He deposited the
entire amount demanded by the.society. The claim of the appellant was
that in view of the expulsion orders having been set aside, he was entitled
H to restoration of his original seniori.y. High Court fixed his seniority with

•··
---.,I

0 P CHOUDHRY '· REHABlLIT ATlON MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OP HOUSE BLDG SOCIETY J JJ

effect lrom a subsequent date. Case of other appellants herein are identical. A
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: I. In view of the agreement which had been entered into
between the parties and the order passed by this Court in earlier Special
Leave Petition, the conditions mentioned therein are absolutely binding B
upon the society as the allotment of land to the society was made in
pursuance to the said agreement. Earlier orders passed by this Court had
the effect of modifying the order passed by the High Court and
consequently it is not open to the society to act contrary to the terms of
the agreement. [319-C, DJ
c
2. In Civil Appeal Nos. 2634-2635 of2003, High Court was justified
in allowing the writ petition filed by the society. In view of the specific
conditions contained in the agreement entered into by the society in earlier
Special Leave Petition, any member of the society who had obtained any
house or a plot from the Department of Rehabilitation earlier, cannot D
again be allotted a plot That apart as on the date when he acquired
membership of the society, he was ineligible and was debarred from
becoming a member thereof and further he did not file a correct affidavit.
[320-A-C)

3. In Civil Appeal No. 2643 of2003, High Court rightly set aside the E
order passed by the Financial Commissioner and upheld the order of the
Registrar. Clause 2 of the agreement entered into between the society in
earlier Special Leave Petition clearly provides that no member of the
society, whose parents had obtained any house or plot from the
Department of Rehabilitation earlier, shall again be allotted a plot. In view
of this clause in the agreement, which is binding on the society, the F
appellant is clearly ineligible for allotment of a plot. (320-H; 321-Af

4. In Civil Appeal No. 2644 of 2003, husband of the appellant could
not have been allotted a plot as his mother had obtained a house from the
Department of Rehabilitation earlier. The appellant having come into G
picture after the death of her husband as nominee member cannot have
better rights than her husband. Since the husband of the appellant could
not have been allotted a plot and further as the appellant did not disclose
· correct facts in her affidavit and gave wrong facts in her subsequent
affidavit, the High Court was perfectly justified in allowing the writ
petition filed by the society by which the order of the Financial H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A Commissioner was quashed and the order of the Registrar was restored. ·
1320-G, H; 321-A, Bl

5. In Civil Appeal No. 2642 of 2003, High Court rightly allowed the
writ petition filed by the society. It is not in dispute that a perpetual lease
of a plot in Delhi was granted in favour of the husband of the appellant.
B It is, therefore, clear that the appellant filed false affidavits. In view of
bye-law No. S(l)(e) of the society, a person cannot be a member of the
society if he or his wife or her husband (in case of a woman) or of his/her
dependent owns a plot or a dwelling house in Delhi. The appellant was
thus not qualified to be a member of the society and was not eligible for
C allotment of a plot. 1322-E, F, G)

6. In Civil Appeal No. 2641, High Court rightly set aside the order
passed by the Cooperative Tribunal as it had not adverted to the main
issue, namely, whether the appellant had submitted any application form
and necessary affidavit for enrolment as member of the society. The mere
D fact that some money was deposited by the appellant would not entitle him
to claim membership of the society. That apart, the society had refunded
the amount through a cheque when the appellant sent a letter that the
money be adjusted in the account of '0'. High Court has rightly taken
the view that the appellant is not himself pursuing the matter, but it was
a proxy litigation. (324-D, E, Fl
E
7. In Civil Appeal Nos. 2645-2646 of 2003 and 6979 of 2001, High
Court erred in altering the seniority of 'K' and placing his name at S.
No. 34 instead of Sr. No. 33. That apart 'K' had not impleaded 'S' as a
party to the writ petition and in his absence no order adverse to his interest
F could have been passed. Order passed by the High Court is modified to
the extent that 'S' shall be placed at Sr. No. 33 and 'K' shall be placed at
Sr. No. 34 in the seniority list. 1325-G, H; 326-AI

8. In Civil Appeal Nos. 2647-2649 of 2003, the appellants only allege
that they sent a letter to the society to do the needful. There was no
G material on record to show that the appellants took any effective steps
for transfer of the membership in their names. As the appellants have not
been formally inducted as members of the society, there was no occasion
for including their names in the draw of lots. (326-D, El

9. In Civil Appeal Nos. 2650, 2651 and 2652 of 2003, there is no
H justification for not restoring the original seniority to the appellant and
0 P. CHOUDHRY ••.REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSE BLDG SOCIETY [MATHUR,J.J 3 J3
. assigning seniority from a subsequent date. Once the expulsion order was A
set aside it has no existence in the eyes of law and cannot be taken notice
of for depriving him of his original seniority. The Managing Committee
of the society had also passed a resolution to the affect that the four
members including the appellant may he asked to submit requisite
documents and make payments of their dues as paid by other members
on account of cost of land, development charges, interest etc. In this B
resolution nothing was said about disturbing the seniority of the appellant
or assigning him seniority from a later date. The appellant having
deposited the entire amount demanded by the society is entitled to
restoration of his original seniority. (327-G, H; 328-Af

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ·Civil Appeal No. 2634-2635 of
c
2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.200 I of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. Nos. 1622/97 and 5158 of 1994.
D
WITH

C.A. Nos. of 2643, 2644, 2642, 2641, 2645, 2646, 2647-2649, 2650,
2651, 2652/2003 and 6979 of 200 I.

Nidesh Gupta, Naveen Singh and Rajan Narain for the Appellant. E
M.L. Lahoty, Sushi! Kumar Jain and P.K. Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MATHUR, J. Special leave granted.
F

-
'-
These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated
28.2.2001 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi by which large
number of writ petitions were decided and, therefore, they are being decided
by a common order.

A cooperative society known as Rehabilitation Ministry Employees G
Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Society') was formed in the year 1959. The Society was incorporated with
the object of providing plots and houses to the employees and ex-employees
of the Ministry of Rehabilitation and its subordinate offices. Out of
compensation pool, comprising mainly of evacuee properties as well as .H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A properties acquired by Government for rehabilitating displaced persons from
Pakistan, some land was allotted to the society by the Department of
Rehabilitation by the letter dated 26.5.197() under the Displaced Persons
(Rehabilitation & Compensation) Act, 1954. The society took steps for
allotment of plots to its members and in tl' 0 .t connection various kinds of
B disputes regarding disqualification, eligibility. seniority, etc. of the members
were raised. These disputes were decided l ·1 the Registrar, against whose
decision revisions were filed, which were decided by the Financial
I
Commissioner. The decision of the Financial Commissioner was challenged
by filing writ petitions by the m.:mbers of the society and in some cases by
the society itself. All these writ petitions have been decided by the common
C judgment and order dated 28.2.200 I of the High Court, which is the subject
matter of challenge in the present appeals.

The eligibility of a member to get ~ plot from the society or his
disqualification has to be examined having regard to the provisions of the
Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (he~e ·•after referred to as 'the Rules'),
D bye-laws of the society and an earlier litigation concerning allotment of land
wherein a settlement had been arrived at du1 ing the pendency of a special
leave petition in this Court. Rule 25 of the Rules which deals with
disqualification reads as under :

"25. Disqualification for Membership.
E
(I) No person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a co-
operative society if he-
(a) has applied to be adjudicated an insolvent or is an undischarged
insolvent; or

-
--r
F (b has been sentenced fur any offe ice other than an offence of a
political character or an offence not involving moral turpitude
and dishonesty and a period of five years has not elapsed from
the date of expiry of the sentence; _r

(c) in the case of membership of a housing society:-
G (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 leasehold or freehold basis provided that
H disqualification as laid down in sub-rule (l)(c) (i) s'iall not be

.......
0 P CHOUDHRY "· REllABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSE BLDG. SOCIETY [MATHUR.I.] J J5

applicable in case of persons who are only co-sharers nf joint A
ancestral properties in congested localities (slum areas) whose
share is less than 66. 72 sq. metres (80 sq. yards) of land; ~
(ii) he deals in purchase or sale of immovable properties either as
principal or as agent in the Union Territory of Delhi; or
(iii) he or his spouse or any of his dependent children is a member B
of any other housing society except otherwise permitted by the
Regi!''rar.
(2) 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 c
(I), h.: shall be deemed to have ceased to be a mel\1ber fr0111 the
date when the disqualifications were incurred.
(3) A member who ceases to be a member of a co-operative society
under sub-rule (2) shall not be entitled to exercise rights of
membership or incur liability as member with effect from the D
date referred to in sub-rule (2) but as from the date he becomes
a creditor of the co-operative society in respect of the amount
due to him on account of paid-up share capital, deposit, cost of
land deposited or any other amount paid by him to the co-
operative society as its member. As from the date of his ceasing
E
to be a member ,of the society under sub-rule (2), the amount
standing to hi5 credit shall be paid to him by the co-operative
society within 3 months and when the co-operative society is
already under liquidation, the amount due to him will be credited
as a '.lebt due to a third party from the co-operative society.
F
(4) If any question as to whether a member has incurred any of the
disqualifications referred to in sub-rule (I) arises, it shall be
referred to the Registrar for decision. His decision shall be final
and binding on all concerned. The power of the Registrar under
this rule shall not be delegated to any other person appointed to
assist the Registrar. " G
'• The society in question is admittedly a housing society and, therefore,
Rule 25( I)( c) is applicable to it. According to clause (i) of this sub-rule, no
person shall be eligible for admission as a member of the society in question
if he owns a residential house or a plot of land for construction of a residential
house in any of the approved or unapproved colonies or other localitie~ in the H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A Union Territory of Delhi either in his own name or in the name of his spouse
or any of his dependent children on leasehold or freehold basis. The proviso
appended to this sub-rule makes an exception in case of persons who are only
co-sharers of joint ancestral properties in congested localities (slum areas),
and whose share is less than 66.72 sq. mtrs. (80 sq. yds.) of land. Even if a
.B person's share in joint property is less than 66.72 sq. mtrs., he would not be
eligible to be a member of the housing society unless the said prope"'y is
sitnated in congested localities (slum areas).

Apart from the rules referred to above, the bye-laws of the society also
lay down certain conditions for the membership of the society. Bye-law no.
C 5 lays down the f'111owing qualification for being enrolled as a memb~r :

"5(i) No oerson shall be a member unless:-

(a) He/she is a displaced person provided that the Managing Comn_ittee
of the Society by a majority decision at a duly convened meeting
shall have the right to relax this condition.
D
(ii) He/she is an employee or ex-employee of Ministry of Rehabilitrtion
including its subordinate offices in Delhi/New Delhi or if prsted
outside wants to settle in Delhi/New Delhi after retirement.

(iii) He/sh~ is/has been an employee of the Ministry in Delhil'lew
E Delhi of which the Depa1tment of Rehabilitation has been a part from
time to time under one Ministry of State etc;

(b) His written application for membership has been approved by a
majority the Managing of Committee;

p (c) His age is more than 18 years, except in the case of minor heir
of a deceased member;

(d) He is not a member of any other house building society, Group
Housing Society;

(e) He or his wife (or her husband in case of a women) or any of his/
G her dependent does not own a plot or a dwelling house in Delhi;

(f) Directly or indirectly he does not deal in purchase or sale of house
or land for construction of houses either himself or through any of his
dependents;

·H (g) He hs carried out the provisions of bye-la\, s 11.
0.P CHOUDHRY >. REHABILITATIONMINISTRYEMPLOYEESCO-OP. HOUSE BLDG. SOCIETY [MATHUR.J.] J J7
(ii) Every person seeking membership of the society shall sign a A
declaration to the effect that he or his wife (she or her husband) or
any of his/her dependents does not uwn a dwelling house or plot in
Delhi and that he/she is not a member of any other cooperative house
building Society.

(iii) Every member on admission shall pay Rs. 5 as admission fee B
which shall not be refunded in any case.

(iv) When a person's application has blen accepted by the Committee
and he has paid his admission fee and share money, and his
membership approved by the General Body, lie shall be deemed to
have acquired all the rights and incurred all the obligations and C
liabilities of member of the society, as laid down in the Cooperative
Societies Act, the Rules made thereunder and these bye-laws.

(v) Application for admission as member and for allotment of shares
shall be made to the Secretary in the form, prescribed by the society
for the purpose. Every such application shall be disposed off by the D
Managing Committee who shall have power to grant admission or to
refuse it after recording reasons for such refusal, provided, however,
that any person whose application has been refused by the Managing
Committee may prefer an appeal with in 30 days to the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies. The decision of the Registrar shall be final. E
(vi) The Society shall not admit member one month prior to the date
of his General Body."

Clause (e) of bye-law no. 5(1) lays down that no person shall be eligible
to be a member, if he or his wife (or her husband in a case of a woman) or
any of his/her dependent owns a plot or a dwelling house in Delhi. That F
apart, every person seeking membership of the society has to sign a declaration
to the effect that he or his wife (she or her husband) or any of his/her
dependent does not own a dwelling house or plot in Delhi and that he/she is
not a member of any other cooperative house building society.
G
The Depa11ment of Rehabilitation through a letter dated 26.5.1970
initially allotted 60 acres of land to the society subject to certain conditions.
This allotment was. however. cancelled on 7.5.1979. The society challenged
the cancellation order by filing Writ Petition no. 654 of 1979, \vhich was
allowed by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court on I. 9. 1980 and the
cancellation order was quashed. The Delhi Development Authority preferred H

.,.,.,
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A LPA No. 254 of 1980, which was dismissed l.iy a Division Bench of the High
Court on 5.1.1981 and.thereafter it preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 3762of1981 before this Court. During the pendency of the petition, the
parties entered into a compromise under which the allotment of land was
reduced to 45 acres with the further condition that the membership of the
society was to be restricted to persons who were members as on 1.9.1980 in
B accordance with the bye-laws of the society. The Delhi Development Authority
accordingly sought leave to withdraw the special leave petition in view of the
agreement that had been arrived at between the parties. This Court accordingly
passed an order on 6.5.1982, directing that the order passed by the Delhi
High Court will stand modified in the light of the terms of the agreement
C between the parties which had been taken on record and the special leave
petition was allowed to be withdrawn. Under thi agreement, certain conditions
were imposed for allotment of land and the .. !evant part thereof are being
reproduced below :

(i) xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
D
(ii) No member of the Society who had himself or herself or through
his parents, husband/wife, children etc. obtained any house or .a plot
from the Department of Reh; )ilitation earlier shall again be allotted
a plot in the developed land.

E (iii) No member of the society who already owns a plot or a house
in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependents anywhere
in the Union Territory of Delhi shall be eligible for allotment of a
plot in the developed land.

(iv) The allotment of plots shall be restricted to the bonafide members
F of the Ministry of Rehabilitation Employees' Cooperative House
Building Society Ltd. only a~ enlisted on 1.9.80, the date on which
the writ petition of the society was allowed by the High Court of
Delhi and in accordance with the bye-laws of the society as then
prevailing. The verification with regard to the individual membership
shall be done by the Registrar. Cooperative Societies who will issue
G a verification ce1iificate before the allotment is actually made to an
individual member.

(v) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(vi) xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
H
0 r CHOl'.DHRY I', REMAJILlTATIONMINISTRY E~1PLOYEES ro-or HOl ;SE BLDG son En' fM.\THl R.J
1
J 3 19

(vii) The Society shall maintain proper registers of membership and A
have its accounts audited from time to time as prescribed by the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It shall submit to the Department
of Rehabilitation every three months a statement in regard to the
progress of development and allotment of plots to the bona.fide
members of Society in accordance with its bye-laws."
B
The condition imposed in the agreement provided that no member of
the society, who himself or herself or through his parents. husband/wife,
children, etc. had obtained any house or plot from the Department of
Rehabilitation earlier, shall again be allotted a plot in the developed land. The
other condition imposed was that no member of the society, who already C
owns a plot or a house in his own name or in the name of his wife or
dependents anywhere in the Union Territory of Delhi, shall be eligible for
allotment ofa plot in the developed land. In view of the agreement which had
been entered into between the parties and the order passed by this Court on
6.5.1982 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3762 of 1981, the conditions
mentioned therein are absolutely binding upon the society as the allotment of D
45 acres of land to the society was made in pursuance to the said agreement.
The orders passed by this Court on 6.5.1982 had the effect of modifying the
order passed by the Delhi High Court by which the order of cancellation of
allotment of land had been quashed and consequently it is not open to the
society to act contrary to the terms of the agreement.
E
The individual cases may now be examined in the light of aforesaid
provisions of Rules, bye-laws of the society and the terms of the settlement.

·Civil Appeal Nos 2634-2635 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 5109-5110 of
2001).
F
O.P. Choud/11y v. Rehabilitation Mi11ist1y Employees Cooperative House
Building Society and Ors.

O.P. Choudhry had been allotted a house bearing no. 8-A/7, Old Rajinder
Nagar, Delhi, by the Ministry of Rehabilitation out of compensation pool. G
This fact was not disclosed by him, when he acquired membership of the
society. Consequently, a notice was issued to him on 13.11.1991 and ultimately
the dispute was referred for arbitration. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies
by his order dated 22.9.1993 held that he was disqualified to be a member
of the society. The Financial Commissioner allowed the revision preferred by
him but the said order has been quashed by the High Cou11 in the writ H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A petition preferred by the society and he has been held to be disqualified.
The appellant, O.P. Choudhry does not dispute the fact of allotment of
house bearing No. 8-A/7, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, but according to him
this allotment was against ancestral property claim and, therefore, it was
HUF property. It is noteworthy that the appellant did not furnish the requisite
B affidavit to the society and concealed the fact of allotment of the aforesaid
property to him when he was enrolled as a member of the society on
19. 9.1973. He disposed of the said prope11y on 26.10.1977 and thereafter
filed the requisite affidavit on 28. l 0. I977. In view of the specific conditions
contained in the agreement entered into by the society in Special Leave
C Petition (Civil) No. 3762 of I981, which have been quoted above, any member
of the society who had obtained any house or a plot from the Department of
Rehabilitation earlier, cannot again be allotted a plot. That apart as on the
date when he acquired membership of the society, he was ineligible and was
debarred from becoming a member thereof and further he did not file a
correct affidavit. The High Court was, therefore, justified in allowing the writ
D petition filed by the society and quashing the order of the Financial
Commissioner. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 2643 of2003 (@SLP (C) No. 7713 of2001) Hari
Singh Mongia v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House
Building Society and Ors.

E The society had issued a show cause notice to the appellant, Hari Singh
Mongia, on 13.11.1991 to the effect that he was disqualified and was ineligible
for allotment, as property No. F-25, Kalkaji, New Delhi, was allotted to his
father Shri Santokh Singh Mongia against verified claim of property left by
him in Pakistan. The appellant admitted the fact that his father Shri Santokh
F Singh had been allotted property No. F-25, Kalkaji, New Delhi. He, however,
submitted that the total area of the prope11y was 200 sq. yds. and after the
death of his father the property was inherited by his mother and seven brothers
and thus his share was only 25 sq. yds. The Registrar in his award dated
4. I 0. I 993 held that the appellant had incurred disqualification but the said
order was set aside in revision by the Financial Commissioner on the ground
G that the prope11y had been acquired by the father of the appellant which was
subsequently inherited by him. The High Court allowed the writ petition
preferred by the society and quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner
and held that the appellant was disqualified.
The appellant does not dispute the fact that his father had been allotted
H property No. F-25, Kalkaji, New Delhi, against verified claim of property left
OP. CHOUDHRY '·REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSE BLDG. SOCIETY [MATHUR,J.) 321

by him in Pakistan. Clause 2 of the agreement dated 5.5.1982 entered into A
··between the society in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3762of1981 clearly
provides that no member of the society, whose parents had obtained any
house or plot from the Department of Rehabilitation earlier, shall again be
allotted a plot. In view of this clause in the agreement, which is binding on
the society, the appellant is clearly ineligible for allotment of a plot. The
High Court rightly set aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner B
and upheld the order of the Registrar. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Civil Appeal No 2644 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) No. 661 of 2002) Smt.
Kamlesh Kumari Bahl v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative
House Building Society and Ors. C
The original member of the society was Shri Kewal Krishan Bahl and
after his death, the appellant Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Bahl, who is his widow,
was taken as a nominee member. The Registrar after inquiry found that
property No. A-431 and A-432, Kalkaji New Delhi, was allotted to Smt.
Vasheshran Devi, who was the mother of Shri Kewal Krishan Bahl by the D
Ministry of Rehabilitation out of compensation pool on account of her being
a displaced person. In view of this allotment of property, Shri K:ewal Krishan
Bahl was not eligible for being allotted a plot. In the affidavit which was
filed by the appellant on 19.9.1989, she did not disclose the fact that the
mother of her husband Shri Kewal Krishan Bahl had been allotted any property
by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. She filed another affidavit on 28.3. 1990, E
wherein she stated that neither she nor her husband nor her husband's parents
had been allotted any plot. The Registrar held that the appellant was
disqualified but the revision preferred by the appellant was allowed by the
Financial Commissioner. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by
the society, quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner and restored p
that of the Registrar.

The material on record clearly showed that property No. A-431 and A-
432, Kalkaji, New Delhi, was allotted to Smt. Vasheshran Devi, who was
mother of Shri Kewal Krishan Bahl, by the Ministry of Rehabilitation out of
compensation pool on account of her being a displaced person. Copies of the G
' .
lease deed and the conveyance deed placed before the Registrar established
the said fact and the record of Municipal Council showed that she was being
assessed for property tax. In view of the aforesaid fact, Shri Kewal Krishan ·

- Bahl could not have been allotted a plot as his mother had obtained a house
from the Department of Rehabilitation earlier. The appellant having come H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A into picture after the death of Shri Kewal Krishan Bahl as a nominee member
cannot have better rights than her husband. Since the husband of the appellant
could not have been allotted a plot and further as the appellant did not
disclose correct facts in her affidavit dated 19.9.1989 and gave wrong facts
in her subsequent affidavit dated 28.3.1990, the High Court was perfectly
B justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the society by which the order
of the Financial Commissioner was quashed and the order of the Registrar
was restored. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Civil Appeal No 2642 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) No. 5439 of 2001) Bhag
Malhotra v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building
C Society and Ors.

The Registrar in his award dated 12.7.1995 held that the appellant had
incurred disqualification as property No. B-4/22, Safdarjung Enclave, New
Delhi was owned by her husband Shri Balraj Malhotra. The Financial
Commissioner has held that the husband of the appellant was holding the
D property as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family and his share was only to the
extent of 40 sq. yds. The case of the appellant is that the property No. B-4/
22, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, belongs to Hindu Undivided Family and
the same was allotted in lieu of a plot at Humayunpur village, which was
acquired by the Government and thus she had not incurred any disqualification.
The case of the society is that the appellant filed an affidavit on 23.1.1973
E stating that neither she nor her husband owned any urban plot in the Union
Territory of Delhi. She filed another affidavit on 12.9.1989 to the effect that
neither she nor her husband nor any of her dependent relation including
married children, during the period of her membership of the society, owned
either in full or in part on leasehold or freehold basis any plot of land or a
F house in Delhi/New Delhi. It is not in dispute that a perpetual lease of plot
No. B-4/22, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, was granted in favour of the
husband of the appellant on 9.3.1966. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant
filed false affidavits. In view of bye-law No. 5(l)(e) of the society, a person
cannot be a member of the society if he or his wife or her husband (in case
of a woman) or any of his/her dependent owns a plot or a dwelling house in
G Delhi. The appellant was thus not qualified to be a member of the society and
was not eligible for allotment of a plot. The High Court, therefore, rightly
allowed the writ petition filed by the society and quashed the order of the
Financial Commissioner. The appeal preferred by the appellant is accordingly
dismissed.
H
O.P. CHOUDHRY "·REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSEBLDG. SOCIETY [MATHUR, J.] 323
Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) No. 5242 of 2001) A
Gurbachan Singh v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House
' Building Society and Ors.

The controversy raised in this appeal is about the initial membership of
the appellant in the society. The appellant claims that as an employee in the
Ministry of Rehabilitation, he deposited Rs. 1,605 on 7.6.1966 with one B
Lachman Dass, a member of the society, who received the documents and the
amount on behalf of the society. An Administrator had been appointed on
29.6.1976, who made a noting that the file of appellant was blank. In pursuance
of the directions issued by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the
appellant, the matter was referred for arbitration. The Deputy Registrar C
(Arbitration), after examining Lachman Dass as well as Shri J.B. Mittal, the
then Secretary of the Society, and after examining other material produced
by the parties, held that the appellant had not submitted any application with
necessary affidavit for enrolment as member of the society and consequently
rejected his claim vide order dated 2.2.1995. The appeal preferred by the
appellant was allowed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal on 25.5.1995 and D
it was directed that the appellant be treated as a valid member of the society.
Ag~inst the said order, the society preferred a writ petition in the High Court,
which has been allowed and the order of the Cooperative Tribunal has been
quashed.
E
The Registrar, apart from other evidence, had also placed reliance on
the circumstance that the appellant sent a letter to the society on 21.6.1983
through his colleague Om Prakash Aggarwal stating as under :

"l deposited Rs. 1,600 only to the Society as advance on June 7, 1966
by cheque no. 693575 dated 20.5.1966. No plot has been allotted to F
me. It is requested that the said money may please be adjusted in the
account of Om Prakash Aggarwal. I attach hereby the original receipt.

-- The society immediately refunded Rs. 1600 through cheque dated
28.6.1983 and a letter was sent to the appellant informing him that it will not G
be possible for the society to adjust the said amount of Rs. 1,600 in the
account of Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal. The writing of the letter by the
appellant is not disputed by him. The Registrar has recorded a clear finding
that the appellant did not submit any application form and the affidavit as
alleged by him and because he did not submit a formal application for H .
enrolment as a member of the society and the necessary affidavit, the question
I

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A of his having been admitted as a member of the society did not arise. He has
further htld that the mere deposit of Rs. 1,605 with the society did not confer
upon the appellant the right of membership. The Cooperative Tribunal did
not at all advert to the aforesaid finding of the Registrar but proceeded on the
basis that the only controversy was about the authenticity or otherwise of the
B signature of Lachman Dass on the receipt dated 7.6.1966. The High Court
has held that the basic issue was whether the appellant had moved a formal
application for enrolment as a member of the society and had submitted the
necessary affidavit and as the Tribunal had not at all considered the said
aspect of the case and had not reversed the finding of the Registrar on this
point, the order passed by it was liable to be set aside. The High Court has
C also taken notice of an additional feature of the case which showed that the
appellant was not himself pursuing the matter, but it was a proxy litigation.
The appellant did not file his own affidavit in reply to the writ petition filed
by the society. On the contrary, the affidavit has been filed by one Shri Rajan
Agga1wal son of Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal in whose favour the appellant
D wanted adjustment of his amount which was deposited by him. The affidavit
has been filed on the basis of a power of attorney. It was on these findings
· that the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the society and set aside
the order passed by the Tribunal.

Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the
E parties and the material on record, we are of the opinion that the High Court
rightly set aside the order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal as it had not
adverted to the main issue, namely, whether the appellant had submitted any
application form and necessary affidavit for enrolment as member of the
society. The mere fact that some money was deposited by the appellant with
F Lachman Dass on 7.6.1966 would not entitle him to claim membership of the
society. That apart, the society had refunded the amount through cheque
dated 28.6.1983 when the appellant sent a letter that the money be adjusted
in the account of Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal. The High Court has rightly
taken the view that the appellant is not himself pursuing the matter and in
fact it was a proxy litigation on behalf of Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal. We,
G therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the
High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 2645 of2003 (@SLP (C) No. 7599 of2002 S.L. Anand v.
K.N. •Kapoor and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) No.
13674 of 2001 S.L. Anand v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative
H House Building Society and Ors. & Civil Appeal No. 6979 of 2001 K.N. -
0.P. CHOUDHRY •«REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSE BLDG. SOCIETY [MATHUR,J.] J25
Kapoor v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building A
Society and Ors.

The appellant Shri S.L. Anand was not made a party in the writ petition
which was filed by the contesting respondent Shri K.N. Kapoor. However, in
the main judgment of the High Court dated 7.12.2001 by which the writ
petitions were decided the seniority position was inter-changed and Sh. K.N. B
Kapoor was shown at serial No. 33 while appellant S.L. Anand was shown
at serial No. 34. The appellant preferred a review petition which was heard
and finally disposed of by t~e High Court by the judgment and order dated
7.12.2001. By the said judgment a number of other review petitions were
also disposed of. The operative part of the order passed on the review petition C
of the appellant reads as under:

"In any case we are of the view that review application on the above
ground is not permissible. We are also informed that Special Leave
Petition has also been filed by the applicant before Supreme Court by
which he is seeking quashing of the judgmem on merits. Accordingly D
except taking on record the fact, as per the record of the society, that
the date on which the applicant K.N. Kapoor submitted his application
seeking membership of the society is 10.12.1970 and not 26.3.1971
and in case 10.12.1970 is taken as the date of his application his
name will come up at Sr. No. 33 instead o'" Sr. No. 34, no further
orders are required to be passed by us on these applications, which E
stand disposed of. "

The appellant Shri S.L. Anand submitted an application for becoming
a member of the society on 26.6.1970, while Shri K.N. Kapoor submitted his
application on 10.12.1970. The application given by the appellant was
approved by the Managing Committee of the society on 2.2.1971 and he was F
admitted as a member of the society and was given membership No. 630.
Shri K.N. Kapoor was enrolled as member on 26.3.1971 and thereafter he
deposited the share money and was given membership No. 657. The Managing
Committee of the society, on a direction of the Registrar, reviewed all
. memberships and passed a resolution on 22.3.1974 approving the appellant G
amongst others as member of the society. The administrator of the society
also, after consideration of the material on record, approved the name of th~
. appellant on 9.8.1976. In view of these facts we are of the opinion that the
· High Court erred in altering the seniority of the appellant and placing his
name at Sr. No. 34 instead of Sr. No. 33. That apart Shri K.N. Kapoor had
not impleaded the appellant as a party to the writ ?etition and in his absence H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A no order adverse to his interest could have been passed. The appeal preferred
by the appellant is therefore allowed and the order passed by the High Court
is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be placed at Sr. No. 33 and
Sh. K.N. Kapoor shall be placed at Sr. No. 34 in the seniority list. So far as
the appeal preferred by Sh. K.N. Kapoor is concerned we do not find any
ground to take a view different from what has been taken by the High Court
B and the appeal preferred by him is dismissed.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2647-2649 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) No. 7602-04 of
2002) Suresh Chand and Ors. v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees
Cooperative House Building Society and Ors.

C The grievance of the appellants Suresh Chand and others is that their
names were not included in the draw oflots held on 14.12.1988 and 23.6.1989
and no plot has been allotted to them. The High Court repelled the claim of
the appellants and further. directed that the society was not required to retain
their names in the seniority list and further it was at liberty to take appropriate
D steps for removal of their names from the list of members. The writ petition
filed by the appellants was dismissed.

The appellants Suresh Chand and Ramesh Chand are sons of Puran
Chand. Puran Chand died on 1.1.1985 and thereafter his widow Smt.
Karunawati became a member and her membershir was approved by the
E Registrar. Smt. Karunawati also died on 22.1.1995. The appellants only allege
that they sent a letter on 14.2.1995 to the society to do the needful. There was
no material on record to show that che appellants took any effective steps for
transfer of the membership in their names. As the appellants have not been
formally inducted as members of the society, there was no occasion for
including their names in the draw of lots. We do not, therefore, find any error
F in the judgment of the High Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 2650 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) No. 17365 of 2002) Ram
Niwas Gupta v. Rehabilitatio:i Ministry Employees Cooperative 'House
Building Society and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2652 of 2003 (@ SLP (C) No.
G 17366 of 2002) K.L. Rathi and Anr. v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees
Cooperative House Building Society and Ors. and Civil Appeal No. 2652 of
2003 (@ SLP (C) No. 17368 of 2002) Uma Shankar Saxena (d) by LR. v.
Rehabilitation Minis11:v Employees Cooperative House Building Society and
Ors.

H The controversy raised in all the three appeals is identical and, therefore,
O.P CHOUDHRY •·.REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSE BLDG. SOCIETY [MATHUR, J.) ) 27

they are being dealt with together. For convenience sake, facts of only one A
appeal are being mentioned. The appellant Ram Niwas Gupta was enrolled
as a member of society on 14.2.1970 and his membership was approved in
the resolution passed on 22.3.1974. The appellant and 35 others were given
.,
a notice of expulsion on 23.5.1974 which was challenged. The arbitrator
gave an award on 14. 7.1982 holding that expulsion of all the 36 members
including the appellant was invalid. The appeal preferred by the society was B
dismissed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal on 20.6.1984 and the writ
petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the High Court
on 8.3.1985. During this period fresh notices were given by the society to the
appellant and others alleging that they had committed default in payment of
the amount. The General Body thereafter passed a resolution expelling the C
appellant and three others which was approved by the Registrar by an order
dated 9.8.1985. The appellant preferred an appeal under Section 76 of the
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act before the Lieutenant Governor which was
allowed on 7.8.1986 and the resolution passed by the society for expulsion
of the appellant and three others was set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the
decision of the Lieutenant-Governor the society preferred Writ Petitions No. D
1129 to 1132 of 1987 which were dismissed by the High Court on
11.5.1990. The Special Leave Petitions filed by the society were dismissed
by this Court on 20.12.1990. Thereafter, the Managing Committee of the
society passed a resolution on 3.6.1991 resolving that the four members
including the appellant be asked to submit the requisite documents and make E
payment of their dues as paid by other members on account of the cost of
land, development charges and interest etc. The amount was deposited by the
appellant on I 0.6.1991. Thereafter the Registrar issued a letter dated 31.8.1992
clearing the membership of the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is
that the expulsion orders passed against the appellant having been set aside,
he is entitled to restoration of his original seniority. The High Court fixed the F
seniority of the appellant with effect from a subsequent date i.e. 14.12.1980
which is the date on which the society passed a general residuary resolution.
We find force in the contention of the appellant that the expulsion notice and
the resolutions passed by the society against him having been set aside by the
competent authority and the challenge made to it by the society by filing a G
writ petition in the High Court and then SLP in this Court having been
rejected, there is no justification for not restoring the original seniority to the
appellant and assigning seniority from a subsequent date i. e. 14.12.1980.
Once the expulsion order was set aside it has no existence in the eyes of law
and cannot be taken notice of for depriving him of his original seniority. The
Managing Committee of the society had also passed a resolution on 3.6.1991 H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003 j 3 S.C.R.

A to the affect that the four members including the appellant may be asked to
submit requisite documents and make payments of their dues as paid by other
members on account of cost of land, development charges and interest etc.
In this resolution nothing was said about disturbing the seniority of the
appellant or assigning him seniority from a later date. The appellant having
B deposited the entire amount demanded by the society, is entitled to restoration
of his original seniority. All the aforesaid appeals are accordingly allowed
and the judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent that the appellants'
original seniority shall be restored.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed.