Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Shweta Park Co-Operative Hsg. Society ... vs Union Of India & 2 on 7 November, 2014

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi

            C/SCA/1567/1991                                               ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1567 of 1991

================================================================
    SHWETA PARK CO-OPERATIVE HSG. SOCIETY LTD. & 2....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
                 UNION OF INDIA & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================

           CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

                                   Date : 07/11/2014


                                     ORAL ORDER

1 Petitioner No.1 is a Cooperative Housing Society. Petitioners No.2  and 3 are its Office Bearers. The petitioners have prayed for a direction  to the respondents to remove the superstructure standing on a plot of  land earmarked as plot No.3 in part­I of the petitioner No.1 - Society.  Brief facts are as under:

2 Petitioner No.1 - Society was constituted in the year 1962. It is a  tenant ownership society. Plot No.3 of part­I of the Society was initially  alloted to one   Shri J.V. Thakker. In October 1986, said Shri Thakker  applied   to   the   society   for   transfer   of   the   said   plot   in   the   name   of  Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/1567/1991 ORDER Rekhaben Champaklal Sheth. 

3 It   appears   that   against   said   Rekhaben   Champaklal   Sheth,   the  authority   under   the   Smugglers   and   Foreign   Exchange   Manipulators  (Forfeiture   of   Property)   Act,   1976   ('SAFEMA',   for   short)   instituted  proceedings   for   forfeiture   of   her   property.   The   competent   authority  passed   an   order   on   22.03.1988   forfeiting   Rekhaben's   said   plot.  Rekhaben   surrendered   the   said   plot   to   the   competent   authority   on  30.06.1988.

4 The competent authority thereupon initially had correspondence  with the petitioners first indicating that the said plot has been forfeited,  and   thus,   vested   in   the   Central   Government,   and   thereafter,   insisting  that  the  society  enter the   name of  the  Central Government,  and  it is  registered as an owner of the plot. Through replies, the Society opposed  such request on the ground that a member of the Society is only the  owner of the superstructure, the ownership of the land always remains  with the Society, and further that in view of Section 22 of the Gujarat  Cooperative Society Act, the Central Government cannot be a member of  the Cooperative Society.

5 When   this   deadlock   was   not   resolved,   the   Society   filed   this  Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/1567/1991 ORDER petition with the above noted request for a direction to the respondents  particularly the Central Government, to remove superstructure from plot  No.3  of   part­I of  the  Society,  and  thereafter   to hand  over  the  vacant  possession to the Society. 

6 The main basis of the petitioners is that a member of the society is  owner of the superstructure put up by him or her on the plot of land  alloted by the Society, and no more. The society always continues to be  an owner of the land, and the forfeiture order therefore cannot touch the  ownership of the land, which was never vested in the member. The other  opposition   is   that   the   Gujarat   Cooperative   Society   Act   lays   down   the  categories   of   the   persons   who   can   be   members   of   the   Cooperative  Society which does not include the Central Government, and therefore  the   request   of   the   competent   authority   for   joining   the   Central  Government as member of the Cooperative Society cannot be accepted.  7 The   concept   of   dual   ownership   in   case   of   Cooperative   Housing  Society   is   well   known   concept,   and   has   been   recognized   over   a   long  period of time. The Society continues to be the owner of the land alloted  to   a   member   who   is   authorized   to   put   up   superstructure   for   his  residential   use.   However,   it   would   be   incorrect   to   suggest   that   the  member is the owner of the superstructure and has no further rights.  The membership in a Cooperative Housing Society comes with a bundle  Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/1567/1991 ORDER of rights and liabilities. The member as long as he continues in the said  capacity and abides by the bye­laws of the society, has right to use such  occupation of the plot of land as the owner of the superstructure. The  Central   Government   when   therefore   ordered   forfeiture   of   Rekhaben's  property in the society essentially it would result in all the rights and  title of Rekhaben in the said property vesting in the Central Government.  Obviously,   the   right   which   Rekhaben   did   not   enjoy   over   the   said  property   would   not   vest   in   the   Central   Government   by   virtue   of  forfeiture   order   or   otherwise.   The   question   of   joining   the   Central  Government   as   member   of   the   Society   would   of   course   throws   up   a  peculiar problem. However, it is not necessary for me to decide all these  questions in view of further pleadings on record. 

8 In   an   affidavit   dated   27.07.2006   filed   by   Shri   P.C.   Chauhan,  Inspecting   Officer,  under  SAFEMA,  titled   as  'additional  affidavit',   it   is  stated   that   there   were   two   intending   purchasers   of   the   property   in  question. They had in fact contacted the Society, and the Society had  informed them that if the department is willing to settle the issue, the  Society   would   not   hamper   the   sale.  In   response   to   such   affidavit,   an  affidavit­in­rejoinder dated 07.08.2006 was filed by the petitioners. In  such affidavit, the society reiterated its stand that if the department was  willing to settle the issue, the Society would raise no objection to the  sale of the plot. 

Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/1567/1991 ORDER 9 Under   the   circumstances,   it   can   be   seen   that   the   Central  Government   obviously   be   interested   in   liquidating   the   property   by  selling the property and to recover the sale proceeds. On the other hand,  the Society has in the said affidavit­in­rejoinder as well as through the  counsel before the Court made it clear that if any individual  member  applies for membership of the society, who is otherwise qualified under  the   bye­laws   and   agrees   to   abide   by   the   bye­laws   of   the   society,   the  society would have no objection, subject to clearance of legal dues of the  Society, to make him a member of the society, and transferring the plot  in his name. 

10 Under   these   circumstances,   petition   is   disposed   of   with   the  following directions:

(1) It   would   be   open   for   the   respondents   and   particularly,  Respondent No.1 to identify the intending purchaser of the plot in  question   by   assuring   highest   possible   price   to   the   Central  Government through such means as may be permissible. (2) It would be open for the petitioners to suggest any buyers to  the Central Government if any intending purchasers contact the  society.
(3) Once   the   buyer   and   sale   consideration   are   finalized,   the  Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/1567/1991 ORDER competent   authority   and   such   intending   purchaser   shall   jointly  apply to the Society for transfer of the plot in the name of such  purchaser. 
(4) The   Society   shall   make   such   purchaser   its   member   and  transfer the plot in question in his or her name, of course subject  to clearance of all the legal dues of the society and payment of  such transfer charges as may be permissible under the law. 

11 With these directions, this petition is disposed of. 

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) chandresh Page 6 of 6