Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 27.05.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 27 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:16225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4837 of 2024
Date of Decision: 27.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Sushil Kumar Verma .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Others ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
Sarthak Upadhayay, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for State.
Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
_______________________________________ _____________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Precisely, the question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is that, "whether married son can be denied membership of the Society, on the pretext that his mother as well as brother are already member of other Society?"
2. Petitioner herein is aggrieved of resolution dated 12.12.2023 passed by Inspector, Grade-I (Audit), Cooperative Societies, Solan, District Solan, being Administrator of the respondent No.3-Society and order dated 13.02.2024 passed by Regulatory Committee i.e. respondent No.2, thereby ordering that w.e.f. 12.12.2023, no new member would be registered in the Society till the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:16225 -2- work of Society increases and petitioner herein is not entitled to be enrolled as a member of the Society on account of the fact that his mother and brother are already members of the Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society.
3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that land of the father of the petitioner to the extent of more than 40 bighas was acquired in the year 2000 for setting up the Ambuja Cement Plant at Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. On account of aforesaid acquisition, father of the petitioner became landless, as a result thereof, he became entitled to ply his vehicle for transporting the material from Ambuja Cement Company to other destinations, in terms of Memorandum of Understanding entered inter se Ambuja Cement Company and Cooperative Societies.
4. Pursuant to aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding arrived inter se Ambuja Cement Company and Cooperative Societies, mother and brother of the petitioner came to be enrolled as Members of Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society and on the strength of same, they had been plying their vehicles. In the year 2020, respondent No.3-Society came to be formed for Gram Panchayat Giana, Gram Panchayat Kashlog, Gram Panchayat Sewra-Chandi, Gram Panchayat Sanghoi and Gram Panchayat 2025:HHC:16225 -3- Mangoo. Bye-laws of aforesaid Society is placed on record as Annexure P-3. As per bye-laws, land-loser would mean and include those persons who are hereditary residents of area of operation and whose land has been acquired by the GACL for the purpose of installation of cement factory, conveyor belt and Mines & not for any other purposes and acquisition proceedings have been completed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
5. Petitioner herein after being separated from his family, which otherwise comprised of his father, mother, sisters and brother, applied for membership of the respondent No.3-Society, but such prayer of him was not accepted on the ground that other family members, especially mother and brother have already availed the benefit of being land-losers and at present, they are members of Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society. Similarly situate persons, who were also denied the membership by respondent No.3- Society on afore ground, approached this Court by way of CWP No.5392 of 2022, titled Kapura Ram and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure P-5). Though in aforesaid proceedings, petitioner herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment, but such prayer of him was not accepted, rather, he 2025:HHC:16225 -4- was directed to approach Assistant Registrar, Cooperatives Societies, Solan, for redressal of his grievance.
6. Pursuant to direction contained in afore judgment, petitioner approached Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solan, by way of appeal under Section 93 of Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, which came to be disposed of on 24.01.2023 (Annexure P-6). Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solan, rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that Regulatory Committee has not recommended the case of the petitioner for enrollment. In afore background, petitioner approached respondent No.2-Regulatory Committee, praying therein for enrollment (Annexure P-7).
7. During pendency of proceedings before the Regulatory Committee, petitioner vide communication dated 07.11.2023 supplied name of two similarly situate persons to Regulatory Committee, but ultimately afore Regulatory Committee vide order dated 07.11.2023 called for report from the respondent No.3-Society.
8. Vide communication dated 16.12.2023, respondent No.3- Society apprised Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Arki, being Chairman of Regulatory Committee that w.e.f. 12.12.2023, new membership has been banned, till the time, work of the Society increases. Vide order dated 13.02.2024, Regulatory Committee taking note of letter 2025:HHC:16225 -5- addressed to Secretary of respondent No.3-Society, wherein it was apprised that brother and mother of petitioner are members of Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society, arrived at a conclusion that petitioner does not fulfill eligibility criteria for his being enrolled as a member of the Society and accordingly rejected his prayer. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, laying therein challenge to order dated 13.02.2024 passed by Regulatory Committee and resolution dated 12.12.2023 passed by Inspector, Grade-I (Audit), Cooperative Societies, Solan, District Solan
9. I have heard the parties and gone through the record.
10. Before ascertaining the correctness of rival submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties, it is apt to take note of the fact that on account of serious allegations of mismanagement and irregularities in enrollment of the members of the Society, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solan, appointed one Naresh Verma, Inspector, Grade-I (Audit), Cooperative Societies, Solan, District Solan, as Administrator of the Society and since then, he had been looking after the affairs of the society.
11. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Sarthak Upadhayay, 2025:HHC:16225 -6- learned counsel representing the petitioner is that once it is not in dispute that petitioner, after his marriage, had started residing separately and in the Parivar Register, his family has been registered as separate entity, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for enrollment in respondent No.3-Society could not have been denied on the ground that his mother and brother are members of Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society. While making this Court peruse Section 2(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, (for short, 'the Act') Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner states that family means husband, wife and unmarried sons and daughters. He states that since petitioner is married son and he resides separately, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for enrollment could not have been denied on account of enrollment, if any, of his mother and brother as members of Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society.
12. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents/State and Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, while supporting the impugned action of respondents No.2 & 3 vehemently argued that very purpose and object of forming Society and giving transport work to the residents of the area is/was to ensure that persons, who lost their land in acquisition for establishment of 2025:HHC:16225 -7- Cement Company are provided with adequate source of income. They stated that once mother and brother of the petitioner have already availed benefit of their being land losers, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner rightly came to be rejected. They submitted that in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted for being enrolled in respondent No.3-Society, all other members of Society, whose one or two family members have been provided membership, on account of acquisition of their land, would come forward for registration on account of the fact that after their marriage, they have started living separately. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, further submitted that 'family' as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act shall be seen on the basis of entry in the Parivar Register existing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He further submitted that since land of the family of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2002, family, as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act, shall be considered on the basis of entry in the Parivar Register, prevailing at that particular time, but certainly, not at the time of making of application at the behest of the petitioner, claiming himself to be residing separately.
13. It is not in dispute that on account of acquisition of their land, mother and brother of the petitioner were enrolled as Member of the Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society and pursuant 2025:HHC:16225 -8- to their being member of afore Society, they were further permitted to ply their vehicles. Now claim of the petitioner, as has been put forth in the petition at hand is that since petitioner after his marriage has been residing separately and constitutes a separate family, as is evident from the Parivar Register, he is also entitled to be enrolled as member of the respondent No.3-Society, on account of the fact that share of his land was also acquired for establishment of cement plant.
14. Plea set-up by learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 has already been negated by Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Nirmala Devi Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Solan and Others, CWP No.4040 of 2021, decided on 16.09.2021, whereby Division Bench of this Court while deprecating the action of Regulatory Committee for changing the definition of 'family' as per Section 2(8) of the Act, observed that, 'family' means husband, wife and unmarried son and daughter. Order dated 26.03.2010 passed by Regulatory Committee was modified and Division Bench categorically held that definition of 'family', as contained in that order shall essentially be read as the one defined in Section 2(8) of the Act, meaning thereby, family would necessarily comprise of husband, wife and unmarried sons and daughters.
2025:HHC:16225 -9-
15. Taking note of aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in case titled as Hem Raj and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, CWP No.2173 of 2016, decided on 16.03.2024. Since similar plea, as has been raised in the present case, was also raised in afore case, this Court finds it profitable to reproduce relevant Paras of afore judgment, for clear understanding of the controversy as well as order passed by this Court, which reads as under:
"2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 2.7.2016 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-5), wherein aforesaid authority concluded that "family"
should be as per Pariwar Register at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and since on account of aforesaid decision rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, definition of "family", which otherwise has been provided under Section 2(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (in short "the Act"), stands altered or modified, as a result thereof petitioners herein became in-eligible to be members of the Society, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:
"i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and annexure P-5, order passed by Registrar Cooperative Societies dated 2.7.2016 and annexure P-6, order dated 12.8.2016 passed by Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Solan, may very kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of membership strictly in 2025:HHC:16225 -10- accordance with the Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971 and bye laws of the Baghal Land Loosers Transport Cooperative Society, Darlaghat, in the interests of justice and fair play.
iii) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and conditions as imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, vide order dated 26.3.2010, annexure P-3, surpassing the provisions of the statue, may very kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interests of justice and fair play."
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that the precise controversy, which needs to be adjudicated by this Court in the case at hand is that "whether "family" should be as per Pariwar Register at the time of issuance of the notification under Land Acquisition Act or "family" as defined under Section 2 (8) of the Act, shall be taken into consideration?"
4. Similar issue had arisen before the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4040 of 2021, titled Smt. Nirmala Devi v. Deputy Commissioner, Solan and Ors. and Division Bench, vide order dated 16.9.2021, clarified that the definition of "family" as contained in the order dated 26.3.2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner shall essentially be read as one defined in Section 2(8) of the Act. Relevant paras No. 2 to 5 of the judgment supra, read as under:
"2. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that there is already an award passed in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, she is entitled to be enrolled as member of the respondent Society. Ordered accordingly.
3. We notice that the instant petition has been filed only on account of unnecessary complications created by the order dated 26.3.2010, that was passed by the Regulatory Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Solan, wherein the "family" was defined as under:
2025:HHC:16225 -11- "7. Family should be as per Parivar Register at the time of Section 4 notification of Land Acquisition Act, 1894"
4. We really wonder how regular Regulatory Committee could have changed the definition of "family", which otherwise exists in Section 2(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 and reads as under:
"Family" means husband, wife and unmarried sons and daughters.
5. Therefore, to that extent, the order dated 26.3.2010 shall stand modified and definition of family as contained in that order shall essentially be read as the one defined in Section 2(8) of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove."
5. Since in the case at hand, petitioners are being declared ineligible on account of definition of "family" as contained in order dated 26.3.2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, prayer made by the petitioners, deserves to be allowed in terms of aforesaid clear cut finding rendered by the Division Bench of this Court."
16. In afore judgment, this Court, having taken note of the stand put forth by the respondents that 'family' should be as per Parivar Register at the time of issuance of notification under Land Acquisition Act or 'family' as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act, ruled that definition of 'family' as contained in Section 2(8) of the Act, shall essentially be read as 'family' for the purpose of determining the claim of membership and not the definition as given by the Regulatory Committee vide order dated 26.03.2010 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Solan. If the definition of 'family' as provided in Section 2(8), which has been reproduced hereinabove, is read in its 2025:HHC:16225 -12- entirety, it leaves no scope of dispute that family would constitute of husband, wife and unmarried sons and daughters, meaning thereby, married son, if residing separately, is also entitled to be enrolled as a member of the Society, subject to his showing that on account of the acquisition of land, he has also become a land loser.
17. Since in the instant case, it is quite apparent from the Parivar Register, placed on record, that petitioner after his marriage started residing separately and he has filed an application to become member of Society, wherein admittedly his mother and brother are not members, prayer made on his behalf for his enrollment, otherwise could not have been denied, especially for the reasons, otherwise given in the impugned order. Though resolution dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-12) suggests that Society has decided not to enroll new members till the time work of Society increases, but decision taken in aforesaid resolution may not have any effect on the application made by the petitioner, especially when such prayer was made prior in time and petitioner herein had been litigating with the respondent No.3- Society, qua the issue of membership.
18. Resolution otherwise pressed into service by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 is of 12.12.2023, whereas record clearly reveals that prayer for his being 2025:HHC:16225 -13- enrolled as a Member of respondent No.3-Society was initially made in the year 2022, when similar situate person had approached this Court by way of CWP No.5392 of 2022, titled Kapura Ram and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, wherein prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for impleadment was rejected, but liberty was reserved to him to approach Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solan, for redressal of his grievance. Pursuant to afore direction, petitioner immediately approached Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solan, who thereafter called upon Regulatory Committee to examine the issue, but as has been discussed hereinabove, Regulatory Committee while misinterpreting the definition of family, as given in Section 2(8) of the Act, rejected the claim of the petitioner.
19. Interestingly, resolution dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-
12) suggests that afore Society while deciding not to give membership to new members till the time work of the Society increases, permitted 18 members, who were not members, but had purchased vehicle to ply their vehicles through respondent No.3-Society, if it is so, petitioner, who had been approaching respondent No.3-Society for membership for quite long, otherwise could not have been denied membership. Otherwise also, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner 2025:HHC:16225 -14- that Regulatory Committee has otherwise no role to decide the issue of membership, which can only be decided by the Cooperative Society, in terms of bye-laws. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2022 of 2022, titled as The Baghal Land Looser Transport Cooperative Society Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 15.06.2024, relevant Para of which, reads as under:
"In view of the provisions existing in the Act, the Rules and the Bye- Laws, the Regulatory Committee does not have the jurisdiction to decide upon the membership of interested persons. The role of the Regulatory Committee, inte alia, can be to oversee, as to whether the new members inducted by the Co-operative Society are eligible to be the members or not; whether they fulfill the parameters laid down or not etc. In other words, the Regulatory Committee cannot sit over the statutory provisions and interfere with the specific powers given to the Co-operative Societies under the Act, the Rules and the Bye-Laws."
20. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-13) and resolution dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-12) are quashed and set-aside with the direction to respondent No.3-Society to enroll the petitioner as member of the Society and thereafter provide transportation work, as per bye-laws of the Society within a period of two months from today.
2025:HHC:16225 -15- The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 27, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)