Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 July, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2404 of 2010
Date of decision: 21st July, 2010
Surinder Kaur
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
with Sanjay Partap, Sub-Inspector,
Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and order (Annexure P-1) dated 1st February, 2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, exercising the powers of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Panchkula, vide which the petitioner, a widow lady, has been ordered to be dispossessed from a flat of the society, be set aside, as the same was passed at the back of the petitioner as she was afforded no opportunity of hearing and that the principles of natural justice had been violated. It is further stated that in pursuance of order (Annexure P-1) the petitioner has been dispossessed illegally and forcibly. It has been further prayed that the petitioner be put back in possession of the house, from which she was dispossessed. Furthermore, respondents be directed to Civil Writ Petition No.2404 of 2010 2 pay compensation of rupees five lacs for causing mental agony and financial loss for performance of an illegal act.
Notice of motion was issued. Despite availing of two opportunities, no written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
Counsel for the respondents have not disputed that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing of the order at Annexure P-1.
Brief facts of the case can be noticed as under.
The petitioner, an old aged widow, purchased a house No.3323-C situated at Chanderlok Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Society') for a consideration of Rs.10,25,000/-. Sanjeev Bhatnagar was having membership No.230 in the Society and was also in possession of the flat (No.3323-C). The petitioner has relied upon a receipt (Annexure P-4) and transfer letter (Annexure P-5). Vide Annexure P-7 on 15th December, 2004, to plead that the flat was transferred on the name of the petitioner. For purchase of the house, petitioner had raised a loan from Union Bank of India, which stood paid to the Bank on 2nd January, 2006 vide Annexure P-8. In- between, a notice (Annexure P-9) was served upon the petitioner stating that the Society did not want to pursue the transfer. However, on the reply submitted on 30th April, 2006, transfer letter (Annexure P-10) was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner was residing peacefully in the flat.
Counsel for the petitioner, during course of arguments, has submitted that one Raja Ram, who used to dabble in the property affairs, considering the petitioner, being an old age widow, intended to usurp her property and approached the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, who exercising the powers of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Civil Writ Petition No.2404 of 2010 3 Haryana, Panchkula, at the back of the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 1st February, 2010 (Annexure P-1), which reads as under:
"The president/secretary of the Chanderlok Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Chakarpur reported that the Society not possess and handed over the flat No.3323-C to Sh.Raja Ram.
It has been proved to the satisfaction of the undersigned that the above said house could not be handed over to Sh.Raja ram in an ordinary manner.
Therefore, I, Devender Beniwal, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Panchkula vested in me under Section 50 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 authorise Sh. Anil Kumar, Inspector Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon-I to help the society securing possession of the above said house so that it can be handed over to its original owner Sh.Raja Ram. It is also requested/ directed to police of concerned area to help the society for law & order."
It is stated that in pursuance of the impugned order dated 1st February, 2010, Raja Ram accompanied by a few other persons, on the same day, i.e. 1st February, 2010 at 3.25 p.m., forcibly entered into the house of the petitioner and threw all the household articles out of her house, took possession of the house and also dragged the petitioner out of the house.
The petitioner was not called upon to plead her defence. As stated earlier, counsel for the State has not been able to defend the impugned order (Annexure P-1), as the same was passed at the back of the petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Raja Ram, to whom the possession had been delivered, at the behest of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon has not been impleaded as a respondent to the present writ petition.
Civil Writ Petition No.2404 of 2010 4
Therefore, this Court cannot restore the possession to the petitioner. However, order (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon is directed to decide the matter afresh, by affording effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The act of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon, who had passed the impugned order (Annexure P-1), is indefensible. It is expected that any authority, before passing of any adverse order against anyone, should have associated the petitioner, heard her and then passed the order. Furthermore, a perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) reveals no reason as to why the petitioner was to be dispossessed. The impugned order stipulated no time-frame for the petitioner to hand over the possession. Even if the order of dispossession was to be passed, the petitioner ought to have been afforded sufficient time to make an alternative arrangement. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon had acted as he was running his own fiefdom. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed on 1st February, 2010. On the same day, the possession was got delivered to Raja Ram. For the last five months, an old age widow is on the roads without any shelter or roof on her head. Denial of the same amounts to violation of her fundamental rights to live with dignity. Thus, she ought to be compensated. Therefore, this Court hereby awards a compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the State within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to an interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The State shall be at liberty to Civil Writ Petition No.2404 of 2010 5 recover this amount from the official, who had passed the impugned order (Annexure P-1), as a result whereof the petitioner was dispossessed.
With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 21, 2010 rps