Delhi High Court
Navjivan Co-Operative House Building ... vs Delhi Co-Operative Tribunal And Ors. on 10 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: ILR1987DELHI323
JUDGMENT Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) Navjivan Cooperative House-Building Society Ltd. has filed his writ petition against an order passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in an appeal No. 46/1585/78/H Commissioner of Income Tax /876 dated 20-7-1984. .
(2) The case of the petitioner is that it is a society which, was originally registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, as extended to Delhi. On coming into force the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, it become a Society under that Act. it is the case of the petitioner Society was formed in the year 1956 with the object, inter alia of acquir. ing land for housing for its members. It is not petitioner Society that respondent No. 3 of its founder members who had formed the on 4th August, 1956 as one of its founder members. He was also a member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society. It is further the case of the petitioner Society that respondent No. 3 had deposited on 19th February', 1963 a sum of Rs. 8,000.00 towards land premium and development charges. Apparently this deposit was made in anticipation of the petitioner Society being allotted .land for distribution amongst its members.
(3) It is further the case of the petitioner Society that respondent No. 3 wrote to the petitioner Society on 28th December, 1963 that the deposit of Rs. 8,000 which stood in his name being the deposit towards the land premium and development charges, be transferred in favor of two members, namely, Ms. Saroj Dewan and Shri Kanwal Sharma, i.e. Rs. 4,000 each be credited in the account of Ms. Saroj Dewan and Sh. Kanwal Sharma (vide annexure 'A' to the writ petition).
(4) It is also the case of the petitioner Society that the land was allotted to it for distribution amongst its members only in April, 1968. Respondent No. 3 by having the amount of the land premium and development charges transferred to others, could not be entitled to allocation of plot. He, however, wanted to deposit Rs. 6,000 again to take a chance for allotment of the plot as a member of the Society after the land had been allotted to the Society. The petitioner Society asserts that sometime in October, 1974 it learnt that respondent No. 3 possibly owned a residential property in Savitri Nagar, Delhi, and reported the matter to the Delhi Development Authority on 15th October, 1974, whereupon respondent No. 3 was required to submit a declaration/affidavit in a perform that he or his wife or any of his dependents did not own any house in Delhi as, required by Bye-law No. 5(ii) of the petitioner Society. The affidavit dated 23rd April, 1975 made by respondent No. 3 which is annexed as annexure 'B' to .the writ petition, reads us under :- "AFFIDAVIT1, Baldev Dutt S/o. Shri Bua Ditta aged years resident of New Delhi and a member of the Navjivan Cooperative House Building Society Limited do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-- 1. That neither I nor my wife nor any of dependent relations (including unmarried children) is or have been a member of any other Cooperative Housing Building Society functioning in Delhi/New Delhi Delhi Cantt since 4-8-1956. 2. That I/my wife or any of my dependent relations including unmarried children did not own on 4th August, 1956 at the time of becoming member of the . Society and also continue not to own in all or part any residential plot of land on lease held or freehold basis, or a house in Delhi New Delhi /Delhi Cantt which could debar me from obtaining a plot in Dda Housing Scheme directly or through Cooperative House Building Societies. 3. That I have noted the conditions in the bye-laws of the house building cooperative society of which I ana a member that I am required to inform the said society as well as the Lt. Governor within one 'month if any plot of land or house or acquired by me or by my wife, my dependent relations, including unmarried children during the period of my membership of the society. (BALDEV DUTT) DEPONENT. Verification 1. the above said deponent hereby solemnly, affirm and declare that the contents of para I and para. 2 and para 3 above are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing therein has been concealed or suppressed. DEPONENT"
(5) It is asserted by the petitioner Society that the respondent sent a letter dated 19th April, 1975 to the petitioner Society, staling that House No. 145, Savitri Nagar, Delhi was a "part of the village Abadi of Sheikh Sarai, entirely acquired by Delhi Ad- ministration and falls under the category, ownership of which does not debar anybody owning it from holding a plot under Dda and that its sole proprietor is my brother-in-law Shri Sushil Kumar who made all the payments for its purchase." The petitioner Society says that respondent No. 3 further clarified that the above said position was on account of the decree passed by the Sub Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 879 of 1974 vide orders dated 9th October, 1974, whereby award between respondent No. 3 and his brother-in-law Sushil Kumar was made a rule of 'the Court. The petitioner has filed the copy of the award and the order of the court as annexure 'C' collectively. The award given by the Arbitrator Mr. C.P. Wig. Advocate, dated 4th October, 1974, reads as under:- "AWARD(Value of Subject matter Rs. 10,000) I was appointed as an Arbitrator in agreement to refer to Arbitration date 9-8-1974, between Shri Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Kanwal Nain, resident of Beri Nag (Pithoragarh) U.P., First Party and Shri Baldev Dutt slo Shri Bua Dutt, resident of 145, Savitri Nagar, P.O. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, Second Party consequently both the parties requested me to enter upon the reference. Hence I entered upon the reference arbitration and recorded their evidence and heard them. Arbitration agreement and statement of the parties recorded on 12-8-1974 are attached herewith as Schedule A, B and C respectively. After due consideration I hold that in view of the Statements given by the parties on 12-8-1974, the property in question belongs to the 1st Party as he paid the full consideration, an approximate amount of Rs. 10,000 towards the sale price registration and other Miscellaneous expenses on behalf of the 2nd party which the second party failed to repay within the stipulated period o^ flaw years. Shri Baldev Dutt has no right, title or iataresti.-w^atBoeVeiF -over the said property. Accordingly the award in favor of Shri Sushil Kumar and against Shri Baldev Dutt who was merely, a benami and who having failed to repay the said amount within agreed period has lost his rights over the said property No. 23/138, K. L. No. 87. Shaikh Sarai. P.O. Malviya Nagar .New Delhi, Registered No. 2926 in the Addl. Book No. 1. Volume No.2177. on Pages 158 to 159 on 30-4-1969 at the office of Sub Registrar, New Delhi sold by the P.O.I. through r/o S.S.C. Office, New Delhi. Sd/ (C. P. Wig) ARBITRAtor"
(6) The older of the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated the 9th October, 1984, reads as under :- "INTHE Court Of .SHRI Dinesh Dayal, Sub Judge 1ST CLASS; Delhi Suit No. 879 of 1974. Shri Sushil Kumar, s/o Shri Kanwal Nain. r/o Beri Nag, Pithoragarh, U.P. Versus Shri Baldev Dutt s/o Shri Bua Dutt r/o 145, Savitri Nagar, P.O. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Application To File The Award And Make It A Rule Of The COURT. Value of the Award for purpose of jurisdiction Rs. 10,000. Application presented on the 10-9-1974 Order In view of the statement of the parties Award Ex. C-1 is made a rule of this Court. Decree be prepared in terms of Award 4-10-1974. sd/- Dinesh Dayal Sub Judge 1ST CLASS: DELHI."
DECREE in Suit for Possession (Order Xx, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure) In the Court of Shri Dinesh Dayal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi Suit No. 879174. Shri Sushil Kumar s/o Shri Kanwal Nain r/o Beri Nagar Pithoragarh U.P. ... Plaintiff 1st Party. Versus Shri Baldev Dutt s/o Shri Bua Dutt r/o 145, Savitri Nagar, P.O. Malviya Nagar, Delhi. ... defendant 2nd Party. Claim For Arbitration Plaintiff presented on the 10-9-1974. This suit come on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Shri K. K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the plaintiff 1st Party and Shri S. K. Mahajan, Advocate for the Defendant 2nd Party. It is ordered that in terms of the award Ex. C-1 which will form part of the Decree the award is made a rule of the Court and it is declared that Second Party has Bo right, title, or interest whatsoever over the property No. 231138, Khasra No. 87, Sheikh Sarai P.O. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as be was only a banemi, so now, the property belongs to 1st Party Sbri Sushil Kumar. Cost Of Suit Plaintiff Dependant -NIL- Given under my hand and the seal of court this 4th day of October, 1974. Seal Of The COURT. sd/- (Dinesh Dayal) Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi".
(7) The words "so now" merely indicate that the property has to be mutated in the name of Sushil Kumar. The earlier words "Second Party has no right, title or interest whatsoever over the property No. 23/138, Khasra No. 87, Sheikh Sarai P.O. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as he was only a benami" clearly establish that since banning respondent No. 3 was "benami".
(8) The contention of respondent No. 3 with regard to property bearing No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi, led to questions and disputes being raised vis-a-vis membership of the Cooperative Society, and between the petitioner. Society and its founder member Baldev Dutt.
(9) The first proceeding between the petitioner society and respondent No. 3 was an arbitration case No. 10/H/83-84. This was a proceeding which was taken before the Deputy Registrar (Arb.) Cooperative Societies. This proceeding arose out of an arbitration application that raised disputes under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act regarding membership of Baldev Dutt, respondent No. 3, and was instituted against Navjivan House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. by Baldev Dutt as a claimant. The Society did not give any parawise written statement/reply to the facts averred in the claim, but merely contended that Baldev Dutt, the claimant, had ceased to be a member of the Society under Rule 55(2) read with Rule 25(1)(c)(I) of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. The Deputy Registrar held that the application was maintainable under Section 60 of the Act and that the dispute exists within the provisions of Section 60(i) of the Act and was covered by clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) whereof. The matter wsa referred to arbitration which came to be dealt with by Mr. D. R. Chopra, Arbitrator, who held that Baldev Dutt had been illegally removed from membership of the defendant Society by arbitrary and premature decision of an incompetent Executive Committee, and that he should, for all purposes, be taken as a member of the defendant Society, and the membership was ordered to be restored with immediate effect. This order of the arbitrator dated 13th January, 1984, also observed that the Society is free to legally proceed against the plaintiff, if at all there is any prima facie case of disqualification against the plaintiff under the relevant provisions of law, and not by taking any arbitrary decision of its own.
(10) In view of the order of the Arbitrator dated 13th January 1984, the petitioner Society filed an application under Rule 25(4) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973, which application came to be dealt with by Shri Sanat Kaul, Registrar.
(11) According to the case of the petitioner Society at the time of its information there were bye-laws of this Cooperative Society, but there was no provision in its bye-laws to the effect mat any of its members could not hold any residential house or residential plot in Delhi, as at that time no such prohibition was operative. It is the case of the petitioner Society that it is the only model bye-laws which were directed to be adopted by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies that 'contained such a prohibition, and the model bye-laws 'that were adopted on 21st July, 1966 contained a prohibition in bye-law No. 5(i)(e). The said bye-law reads as under :- . "5(I)Any person shall be eligible to be a member of the society provided :- (e) he or his wife (she or her husband in case of a woman) or any of his/her dependents dues not own a dwelling house or a plot for building a house in Delhi."
(12) There is a dispute regarding the date of adoption of these bye-laws by the Society on 21st July, 1966. Because of the view I take in this matter, this dispute needs no resolution. For the purpose of adjudicating upon the matter in issue in' this case, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 framed under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. prior to its amendment, which reads as under :-- "25.Disqualifications of Membership :- (1) No person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a cooperative society, if he- (a) has applied to the adjudicated an insolvent or is an undischarged insolvent; or (b) has been sentenced for. any offence other than an offence of a political character or an offence and involving moral turpitude and dishonesty and a period of five years has not elapsed from the date of expiry of the sentence; or (c) in the case of membership of a housing society. (0 he owns a residential house of a plot of land for the construction or 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 his spouse or any of his dependent children, on lease hold or free-hold basis ; (ii) he deals in purchase or sale of immovable property either as principal or as agent in the Union Territory of Delhi ; or (in) he or his Spouse or any of his dependent children is a member of any other housing society except otherwise permitted by the Registrar. (.2) 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or the bye-laws of the Cooperative Society, if a member becomes, or has already become, subject to any disqualifications specified in sub-rule (1), he shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member from the date when the disqualifications were incurred. (3) A member who ceases to be a member of a cooperative Society under sub-rule (2), shall not be entitled to exercise rights of memberships or incur liability as member with effect from the date referred to in sub-rule (2) but as from the date he becomes a creditor of the cooperative 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 to be a member of the society under sub-rule (2), the amount standing to his credit shall be paid to him by the co-operative society forthwith and when the cooperative society is already under liquidation, the amount due to him will be credited as a debt due to a third party from the co-operative society. (4), If any question as to whether a member has incurred any of disqualifications referred to in sub-rule (1) arites, 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."
(13) Rule 25 in this form came up for interpretation in a number of cases in this Court, the last of which was a Full Bench judgment reported as Daulat Ram Mehndiratta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and others) (1), which considered and disagreed with the earlier Division Beaches, reported as 2nd (1974) Ii Delhi 684 (Prof. Balraj Madhok & others V. Registrar of Co-operative Societies Now Delhi & another) (2) and 2nd (1977) Ii Delhi 164 (S. B. Lall another v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies New Delhi & another)(3). The principles laid down in these three cases as far as this Court is concerned, will decide and determine cases to which they apply, i.e.in cases where a member of a cooperative society is the owner of a residential plot or a residential building etc. (14) These judgments, however, do not apply to the instant case as a properly constituted civil court had adjudicated that in a proper proceedings referred to earlier, that Baldev Dutt was not the owner of property No. 145, Savitri Nagar. Even the amended rule 25 hereafter purports to disqualify only those who own residential house or a plot etc. Baldev Dutt has been found not to be an owner.
(15) After the decision of the Full Beach Rule 25 was amended in the year 1982. The amended Rule reads as follows:- "AMENDMENT of rule 25.-(a) to clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rides, 1973, the following proviso shall be added, namely :- "Provided that the disqualification as laid down' in sub-rule (1)(c)(i) shall not be applicable in cases of persons who are only co-sharers of joint ancestral properties congested localities (slum areas) whose share is less than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) .of land." (b) In sub-rule (3). of rule 25 the word "forthwith" appearing in the 15th line shall be substituted by the following words, namely :- "Within 3 months".
(16) As this case relates to the rights of members vis-a-vis Cooperative Society. It is necessary to keep the principles which have given birth to Cooperative Societies in one's mind. In a book titled "Indian Cooperative Laws vis-a-vis - Cooperative Principles" written by Shri P. E. Wearaman, the then Regional Director for South East Asia, International Cooperative Alliance, cooperative principles have been dealt with. The author of the Book says this about "Cooperative Societies" at page 2. A cooperative society is thus an association of persons or of societies, which has as it object the economic and social betterment of its members, through the satisfaction of their common economic needs by means of a common undertaking based upon mutual aid and profit-elimination, and which conforms to the Cooperative Principles. It is stated that there are six Principles of Cooperation. The first four set out the working methods of the cooperatives and the other two state what is essential for the continued progress of the movement. All the six principles are equally important. "They form a system and are inseparable. They support and reinforce one another. They can and should be observed in their entirety by all cooperatives if they claim to belong to the Cooperative Movement" (ICA Principles Commission). The six principles are stated as follows :-
(1)Voluntary and open membership.
(2)Democratic control.
(3)Limited interest on capital.
(4)Equitable division of surplus.
(5)Cooperative Education.
among Cooperation (17) The principle that the membership shall be voluntary in the Cooperative Society means that :-
(1)a person who joins a cooperative society of his own free will, and.
(2)the society which admits a person into its membership should likewise do so voluntarily.
The principle open membership is that :-
(1)there shall be no artificial restriction on the admission of members;
(2)there shall be no social, political, racial or religious discrimination against persons who wish to join, and (3)membership shall be available to all persons who need and can make use of the society's services and are willing to accept the responsibilities of member ship.
(18) The principle of voluntary open membership would naturally exclude the State from becoming a member of a Cooperative Society, and would exclude the State interference in the affairs of the Society.
(19) The author also reproduced the address of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, addressing the Third Indian Co-operative Congress in April 1958, and the same is as follows :- "NOWI want to make a confession to you, and that is that I think our government was quite wrong in accepting some of the decisions of the Rural Credit Survey Committee-not all, but: some. I am sorry for it. I am responsible for it as much as anybody else. It is as much my fault as anybody else's. The more thought I have given to it, the more I have realised that the approach of the Rural Credit Survey Committee in some respects was not a right or sound approach and they tended to push the cooperative movement in the country in the wrong direction. What was this wrong direction ? There was a tendency, on the part of that .committee to distrust our people, if I may say so, our common people, a tendency to think that they are not competent enough, that they cannot do a job by themselves; that, therefore, government officials must come in and help, that government money should push them up. If government money comes, that mosey is followed by government officials. The small cooperative has not enough resources or money or competent technical personnel ; therefore, you should have large cooperatives, which can be started and helped by government and so on. Now I believe that that approach, which has certainly something to say for it-it may be argued that there is some reason behind it-was, nevertheless, a wrong approach, and it has given a wrong turn to our cooperative movement. Ever since I realised this, I have been trying to point this out; and here on this occasion I should like to say to you, who are chiefly responsible, that that approach, even though it might bring some results locally and temporarily, pushes the cooperative movement in a direction which is net cooperative at all, which is something else, and which offends against the whole philosophy which, I believe, has grown up round this movemeat. Because, if it is to be a stage-sponsored movement, with government officials running it, it may do some good if the government officials are competent enough, but it does infinite harm in the sense that it does not allow the people to learn how to do things for themselves, how to develop a spirit of self-reliance, self-dependence and even to make mistakes, if they have to make mistakes".
(20) Rule 25 which puts an imposition of restriction upon membership by the State through the agency of the Lt. Governor of Delhi, appears to violate the. cooperative principles mentioned above. However, the two Division Benches of this court and one Full Bench of this Court had not referred to those principles of cooperation while dealing with the nature and impact of the said Rule. Such an examination, in my view, was required in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, which deals as under :- "4(1).Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, a society which has as its object the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with cooperative principle, or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of such a society, may be registered under this Act with or without limited liability : Provided that no society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound or the registration of which may have an adverse affect on development of cooperative movement. Provided further that, unless the Lieutenant-Governor by general or special order otherwise directs, the liability of the society of which a member is a cooperative society shall be limited."
(21) Lam, however, bound by the pronouncements of this Court with regard to Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, it may be that another direction would have been taken by this Court in the matter of "cooperative". 'It is only for this reason that I have referred to the book "Indian Cooperative laws vis-a-vis Cooperative Principles". I have also felt the need to refer to the said book for the reason that even the Supreme Court in the case Daman Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, observed that, "affidavits of underlings of the .executive who can hardly be described as authorised to speak for the legislature, cannot be the basis of decision on vires of legislation". A perusal of the afore-mentioned judgments does not indicate that principles of cooperation were mentioned in the contentions of the counsel. it is only to be noted that in the case Daman Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (supra), the Supreme Court held that a registered cooperative society is a corporation, and that the Registrar can order compulsory amalgamation of one cooperative society with another, and that such an amalgamation is nor unconstitutional.
(22) In my view the provisions of Rule 25 in so far as they disqualify persons from being members of the Cooperative Society, need to be strictly construed, and unless any person is squarely covered by the terminologies which are used to disqualify, no disqualification should attach to such a person.
(23) A perusal of Rule 25 clearly indicates that the rule maker was conscious of the fact that benami holding of the property was a way of life in Delhi, inasmuch as rule 25 specifically disqualifies a person whose dependent children hold any residential house of land for construction of the residential house. The fact that some children are "dependent" by itself postulates that they have no earning capacity,, and if they hold any. residential house or residential plot the money for the same must have been provided by someone else, may be their father. Apart from the fact that someone may have a wife of independent means who can acquire property from her own assets, it is more than likely that e wife is a dependent, and the property in her name is actually the property purchased from we funds provided by her husband. The dear intent of this rule is, therefore, that those who hold properties "benami" either in their wife's name or in the rame of their dependent children, were not intended to be permitted to become a member of the Cooperative House Building Society. It is to be noticed that these rules do not 'House a prohibition on persons who were "benami" owners of the properties, which belonged to persons other than their wife or their dependent children. In other words, this rule would not cover the case of a person who held property "benami" in the name of his children who were not dependent upon him, or his spouse who was-not dependent on him, or who held property "benami" for other persons. ' (24) Another thing to be noticed in this role is that so far at it deals with plot of land for construction of a residential house, it specifically includes those plots which are to be found either in "approved colonies" or "unapproved colonies" in the Union Territory of Delhi. In other words, plots of land covered are only those 'plots of land which had been carved out with respect to land which is unbuilt or land that had not been developed by planning. Since the rules have been framed in the year 1973, and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act came into existence in the year 1957, it has to be assumed that the person who made these rules was familiar with the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which have a bearing on "colonies" are Sections 312 and 313. They read as under :- "312.owners obligation when dealing with land as building sites:- If the owner of any land utilises, sells, leases out or otherwise disposes of such land for the instruction of buildings thereon, he shall lay down and make a street of streets giving access to the plots into which the land may be divided and connecting with an existing public or private street. 313. Lay-out plans :- (1) Before utilising, selling or otherwise dealing with any land under section 312, the owner thereof shall send to ihe Commissioner a written application with a lay-out plan of the land showing the following particulars, namely :- (a) the plots into which the land is proposed to tie divided for the erection of buildings thereon and the purpose or purposes for which such buildings are to be used; (b) the reservation or allotment of any site for any street, open space, park, recreation ground, school, market or any other public purpose; (c) the intended level, direction and width of street or streets; (d) the regular line of street or streets; (e) the arrangements to be made for levelling, paving, metalling, flagging channelling, sewering, draining, conserving & lighting street or streets. (2) The provisions of this Act sM the bye-laws made there under as to width of the public streets and the height of buildings abutting thereon, shall apply in the case of streets referred to in sub-section (1) and all the particulars referred to in .that sub-section shall be subject to the sanction of the standing committee. (3) Within sixty days after the receipt of any application under sub-section (1) the Standing Committee shall either accord sanction to the lay-out plan on such conditions as it may think fit or disallow it or ask for further information with respect to it. (4) Such sanction shall be refused- (a) if the particulars shown in the lay-out plan would conflict with any arrangements which have been made or which are in the opinion of the Standing Committee likely to be made for carrying out any general scheme or development of Delhi whether contained in the master plan or a zonal development plan prepared for Delhi or not; or (b) if the said lay-out plan does not conform to the provisions of this Act and bye-laws made there under; or (c) if any street proposed in the plan is not designed so as to connect at one end with a street which is already open. (5) No person shall utilise, shall or otherwise deal with any land or lay-out or make any new street without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Standing Committee and if further information is asked for, no step shall be taken to utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land or to lay-out or make the street until orders have been passed upon receipt of such information : Provided that the passing of such orders shall not be in. any case delayed for more than sixty days after the Standing Committee Committee has received the information. which it considers necessary it to deal with the said application (6) The lay-out plan referred to earlier in this section shall, ii so required by the Standing Committee, be prepared by a licensed town planner".
(25) When these provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are kept in mind, in my view if is clear that the plots that arc contemplated by Rule 25 are those that have been carved out or laid out as a result of conscious developmental planning for colonising of uncolonised land. In other words, "colonising" is with respect to land which was not earlier being used for any construction, but has been later carved out into plots for carrying out erection of building etc by developmental planning, authorised or unauthorised. The rules make it irrelevant whether the colony is approved or unapproved. What is necessary according to the rules is that the plot should have been carved out or laid out by conscious act of planning. If the plots are laid out/carved out in land in a colony approved by the Delhi Municipal Corporation, and if they were carved out or laid out in a, colony not approved by the Delhi Municipal Corporation, . they were also covered. The approval or non-approval of the Corporation could only be with respect to the provisions of Sections 312 and 313 of the Act.
(26) What is contended by the petitioner Society in the instant case is that respondent No. 3 became owner of House No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi, and by virtue of becoming owner of the house, respondent No. 3 incurred a disqualification Within the meaning of Rule 25(i) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules.
(27) It is urged by the Society that the decree of the court to the effect that the House No. 145, Savitri Nagar is benami, that it did not belong to respondent, is collusive and not binding on the Society, or the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
(28) IT' is not asserted by the petitioner Society, or the Registrar of Cooperative Societies that House No. 145, Savitri Nagar is in a colony approved by the Corporation. It is also not asserted by the petitioner Society or the Registrar that House No. 145, Savitri Nagar is in an unapproved colony in the Union Territory of Delhi. What is urged by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is that the decision taken by the Registrar in the matter of Rule 25 has to be that of the Registrar Cooperative Societies alone, and that no person or body can interfere or determine whether a particular residential house or a plot of land is such:' that disqualification is incurred by the person who holds it. I do not agree. The Registrar is bound by a decision of a civil court given in a case which the court had jurisdiction to decide. The Authorities under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 cannot be permitted to ignore decision of civil courts. Annexure R-10 dated 4th February, 1984, written by the Delhi Development Authority to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies shows that, in any case the premises No. 145, Savitri Nagar is not in. an authorised or unauthorised colony. The land, it says, is in "lal dora" residential area of village Sheikh Sarai, and is also subject matter of "earmarked" acquisition since 7th January, 1909. The said letter reads as under :- "F.5(12)/17/;CS/DDA/Part. February 4 S. P. Marwah, Director (GH) The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Courts Land, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Sir, Sh. Baldev Dutt has represented to us that be was duly enrolled as a Member of Navjivan Cooperative House Building Society on 4-8-56, but has been wrongfully denied allotment of a plot till now though several persons enrolled after him have since been accommodated. Our record reveals that the society vide its letter dated 15-5-74, sent a list of 11 persons on waiting list, wherein the name of Sh. Baldev Dutt appeared at Sr. No. 1. It again wrote to Dda on 16-6-75, that 3 plots had become available for allotment following their surrender by the original allottees and that these could be allotted to the persons on the waiting list. Sh. Baldev Dutt was again shown as one of the 4 persons to whom 4 plots, the availability of which was conveyed by the Society to Dda vide their letter dated 16-12-1976 were proposed to be allotted. Eligibility of Shri Dutt was again confirmed by the Society in its letter dated 23-6-77 and again on 18-7-77. I am enclosing copies of all these letters for your reference. Perusal of the record further show that the Society had some reservation about allotment to Sh. Dutt on the grounds that he owned property No. 145. Hi Savitri Nagar and hence, was not' eligible for allotment by the Society in view of the terms contained in the Scheme of the allotment to the members of cooperative House Building Society This issue was also examined in Pda at length and it was found that the above mentioned property is located within the Lal Dora of village Sheikh Sarai (Savitri Nagar) and stood notified under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, vide notification No. F. 4(2)/62-L&H dated 6-1-1969 and 7-1-1969. Shri Dutt has also now filed a certified copy of the Lal Dora issued by S. D. M" Delhi, on 27-12-1983. confirming that said property falls in Kh. No. 548/ 135, which bad been earmarked as Lal Dora during the resettlement consolidation on operation of the village Sheikh Sarai in the year 1908-09. I am enclosing a copy of Lal Dora Certificate also. It may also be mentioned that Sh. Dutt deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000 with the Society towards the cost of land but had to withdraw it in 1962, due to some domestic reasons. The above facts go to amply prove the eligibility and entitlement for allotment of Sh. Baldev Dutt. You are requested to loll into the matter and convey appropriate instructions to the Society. Yours faithfully, Sd/ (S. P. Marwah) Director (OH)"
(29) In my view rule 25 as amended, makes it clear that the sums iS not absolute in terms, and it needs to be applied to the facts of each case.
(30) After the amendment it is necessary to adjudicate upon the extent of land held by an individual in congested localities, and if the holding is less than 80 sq. meters then such holding would not entail a disqualification.
(31) As stated earlier as the said rule 25 whether, before of after the amendment of it, entails disqualifications, in my view, had to be considered strictly. This rule is applicable-only with respect to Cooperative House Building Societies. Cooperative House Building Societies are obviously formed for the purposes of building houses on a cooperative basis. This cooperative basal may take the form of allocation of distinct plots of land, or It may take the form of building a multi-storeyed structures containing numerous flats that are to be allotted to each of the members or some of the members of the Cooperative Society on the basis determined by the Society. Since this dinner/shopping. qualification/disqualification for becoming members or continuing to be members of the Cooperative House Building Society, the nature of the property mentioned, namely, the residential house or a plot for building of residential house in approved of unapproved colony,' 'must necessarily mean that the residential house or plot turn building residential house in an approved or an approved colony, must be one which is capable of being held by a member till such time he wants to dispose of it. In other words, the residential house must be capable of being held without any restraints, indefinitely by the member of the Cooperative Society till such time as he desires to part with his rights with respect to it. In my view, only when the residential house or the plot of land can be so held, the disqualification ought to come into operation and not otherwise, as otherwise a person whose residential house or a plot of land is under notice of acquisition and such house /plot in exercise of power of acquisition can be taken away from a person, he would not be entitled to become member of a House Building Cooperative Society, and thereby own residential land of a residential house. It would be unreasonable to construe the said rule in such a way that even when a person's residential house or plot of land is likely to be acquired by being subject matter of land acquisition, or has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and notices for such acquisition have been published both under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, or subject matter of urban ceiling law, even then he would be disqualified from becoming a member, then the rule would, in my opinion, be arbitrary ana unjust and would be liable to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I, however, in the facts and circumstances of this case, do not need to give such interpretation because I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not possible to come to the conclusion that property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi was a residential house within the meaning of rule 25, as it is clear from the tatter written by the D.D.A. to the Registrar Cooperative Societies that the same is subject matter of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act notices which were published on 6th January, 1969 and 7th January, 1969.
(32) It is not disputed before me that property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi, was original not to be allotted in the name of respondent No. 3. The same was allotted originally to the mother of respondent No. 3 against her claims under the Displaced Persons (Compensation &t Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Owing to the fact that the mother of respondent No. ) died, against the claims of respondent No. 3 being the heir, respondent No. 3 was lobe allotted this house by the authorities concerned. It is the case of respondent No. 3 that he did not have the money to pay for the house which was to be allotted to the mother, and after his mother, to him. It is further the case of respondent No. 3 that he looked to his brother-in-law to provide the money for getting the house allotted in his name. It is also the case of respondent No. 3 that his brother-in-law was the real owner of this property, and that he was merely a "benamidar". Respondent No. 3 was a "benamidar" because property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi, was to be in the name of his mother, who became entitled to it. Respondent No. 3 being the heir of his mother, he became entitled to it after her death, as he did aot have the money, and as his brother-in-law wanted the property, respondent No. 3 was willing to let hin have it. The brother-in-law of respondent No. 3 provided the money for it. As the brother-in-law of respondent No. 3 provided the money, respondent No. 3 was never the real owner of House No. 145, Savitri Nagar, as such respondent No. 3 did not incur the disqualification under rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. Besides, property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi, was recorded in his name for a short period between 31st December, 1968 and 617th January, 1969. On the latter date the whole of that property was covered by notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land 'Acquisition Act. In any case, therefore, respondent No. 3 never held any residential house, assuming it to be a residential house, which would incur a disqualification under Rule 25(l)(i).
(33) I agree with the contentions of respondent No. 3 that it would be unequitable to hold that the mere fact that because property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi stood in his name tut about a week (assuming that respondent No. 3 was not a "benami" holder of the same), he has incurred the disqualification postulated by Rule 25(l)(i), as in my view, Rule 25 postulates holding of residential house in such a manner that it can be held until the same has been disposed of voluntarily. In the instant case there is no voluntary act of disposal of property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi, the same is the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.
(34) The "benami" nature of the holding of property No. 145, Savitri Nagar is of importance in this case. It is not disputed that if respondent No. ? is "benami" holder of the same, then he would not incur a disqualification in terms of Rule 25.
(35) Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 which came into force w.e.f. 2nd April, 1973, in so far as it lace appears to be applicable to eligibility for admission as a member of a Cooperative Society, reads as distinct from continuation as a member the same read as under :- "25.Disqualifications of Membership.-(1) No person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a co-operative society, if he- (c) in the case of membership of a housing society. (i) he owns a residential house or a plot of. land turn 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 his spouse or any of his dependent children, on lease hold or free-hold basis; (ii) he deals in. purchase or sale of immovable property 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 of any other housing society except otherwise permitted by the Registrar. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the roles or the bye-lav-'s of the co-operative society, if a member becomes, or has already become, subject to any disqualifications specified in sub-rule (1),' he shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member from the date when the disqualifications were incurred. (3) A member who ceases to be a member of a cooperative society under sub-rule (2), shall not be entitled to exercise rights of memberships or incur liability as member with effect from the date referred to in sub-rule (2) but as from the date he becomes a creditor of the cooperative 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 to be a member of the society under sub-rate (2), the amount standing to his credit shall be paid to him by the cooperative society forthwith and when the co-operative society is already under Liquidation, the amount due to him will be credited a debt due to a third party from the co-operative society. (4) If any question as to whether a member has incurred any of disqualifications referred to in sub-rule (1) 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."
(36) This Rule, as it stood on being made, was a subject matter of judicial pronouncement of this Court in three cases, namely. Prof. Balraj Madhok & others v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & others, 2nd (1974) Ii Delhi 684, followed by S. B. Lall & another v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies New Delhi & another, 2nd (3977) Ii Delhi 164, and followed by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Daulat Ram Mehndiratta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and others, .
(37) This Court in its first judgment in Prof. Balraj Madhok's case held Rule 25 to be intra vires. and a coordinate bench held this Rule to be ultra vires, in so far as the same could operate retrospectively. The Full Bench was constituted to resolve this conflict by over-ruling both the aforesaid judgments, and saying that Rule 25 operated only with effect from the date when it came into force, that is to say 2nd April, 1973.
(38) It was. not disputed in any of the three judgments of this Court that Rule 25 is subordinate legislation. The Full Bench coined at page 477 that the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 gives no power to make retrospective rules. The Full Bench also said, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in I. T. Officer, Alleppey v. M. C. Ponnose, , that subordinate legislation can have no retrospective operation. In none of the three cases this Court considered the effect of the words in Rule 25, which in terms stipulated that the said Rule related to eligibility for admission as a member of the Cooperative Society. In terms, this Rule did not seek to cover those persons who had already been admitted as members of a Cooperative Society before the Rule came info force on 2nd April, 1973. or even when the cooperative Act came into force, which also came into force on 2nd April, 1973 by virtue of notification No. F.7(15)165-73(Coop.l3613 dated 16th March, 1973. Inasmuch Rule 25 related only to admission of members, and specified which of the members were not eligible for becoming numbers of the Cooperative Societies, the Mine could have no application to those who had already been admitted as members of Cooperative Society prior to 2nd April, 1973 when the said Act and the said Rules came into force. It is perhaps for this reason that the Full Bench observed, "if a person has already acted upon an earlier allotment and built en a plot, and it was given to him by the Society prior to 1973 Rules, he naturally cannot be divested of that property". This observation clearly means that a person who was admitted as a member of the Cooperative Society, and as a member of the Cooperative Society he had already been allotted any plot of land, constructed upon it a residential house, then even Rule 25(c)(i) could not divest him of his right to the house that be had built on a plot of land allotted to him as a member of the Cooperative Society prior to coming into force of the Act and the Rules, which, as noted above, came into operation simultaneously on the same date, i.e. 2nd April, 1973.
(39) After the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, Rule 25(c)(i) was amended, and the amended Rule reads as under :- "AMENDMENT of Rule 25.-(a) In clause (c) of sub- rule (1) of rule 25 of ihe Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, the following proviso shall be added, namely :- Provided that disqualification as laid down in sub-role (l)(c)(i) shall not be applicable in case of persons who are only co-sharers of joint ancestral properties in congested localities (slum areas) whose share is less than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) of land."
(B)In sub-rule (3) of rule 25 the word "forthwith" appearing in the 15th line shall be substituted by the following words, namely :- "within 3 months"
(40) A comparison between the amended Rule 25 (1) (c) (1) and the unamended Rule shows that after the merriment there has to be a determination as to whether or not a member of a Cooperative Society holds 66.72 sq. meters of land or not In other words, there is no question of there being an automatic disqualification for the reason of holding of the land. Holding of land to an extent of 66.72 sq. meters or under, is not taken into account in case of eligibility for admission as a member of a Cooperative Society.
(41) In none of the three judgments of this Court, cited above, there was any examination of the meaning in effect of the provisions of Rule 25(1)(c)(i), reference to what is stated in the Full Bench decision reported as shows that different types of prohibitions are contemplated at different times by the persons administering the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. It appears that the Housing Commissioner gave land to the Cooperative Society on certain conditions. One of them bring, as stated by the Full Bench, (ii) "any person who already owns a house\residential flat in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent children will not be allotted any land as a member of this society". In other words, the condition which was imposed by the Housing Commissioner at the time of allotting land to the Cooperative Society was with respect to members of the Society who owned "house, or owned residential flat". This a contractual condition, not a statutory one. Some bye-laws required that the member or his wife (or husband in case of a woman) or any of his/her dependents does not own a dwelling house or plot for building a house in Delhi/ New Delhi/Delhi Cantt. It appears that one of the conditions in which the lease-deed was granted, was that members who or whose wife /husband including unmarried children does not own, in full or in part, on free-hold or lease-hold basis, any residential plot for house in the urban areas of Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. By this condition the Holding of "lal dora" land which is land to be used for building a house in a village is not a disqualification. 41 A. Every one of the conditions which limited the right of member? to allotment of plot of land, required ownership of another residential house/residential plot. Rule 25 as it now stands today, is, however, different from the conditions aforestated. It postulates that the ownership should be with respect to a residential house or a residential plot of land in an approved or unapproved colony or in other localities in the Union Territory of Delhi, in his own name,or in the name of spouse, or any of his dependent children on freehold or lease-hold basis. A perusal of the said Rule as it is understanding its content with respect 'to existing laws, particularly the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Sections 312 and 313 indicates that the disqualification that must exist has to exist with respect to a residential house in a colony approved under Sections 312 and 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, or the residential house or residential plot of land most exist in an unapproved colony postulated by Sections 312 and 313 of the Act, or in any other locality in the Union Territory of Delhi. It seems to roe that the residential house or residential plot of land, that is contemplated by Rule 25(1)(c) has to be such which has been subjected to development activities, as distinct from undeveloped land. This is the consequence of the use of the words ''colonies". In the context in which it appears, ''colonies" refers to areas of land on which the human architectural I town planning skill has been expended to lay-out plots of land containing reservations postulated by Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. If the lay-out proposed is approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Section 313, it would become an approved colony, and If the development i not approved by the Municipal Corporation, then the carving out of the residential plots shall be termed as unapproved colony. Making of residential colonies, whether approved or unapproved, is a relatively new development in the context of what is now known as Union Territory of Delhi.
(42) I think judicial cognizance can be taken of the fact that the city of Delhi is an old and historic city. It has a history' of over thousand years. Large tracts of the city of Delhi were unbanished in the past. Thus we have, what is known as Inderprastha, Shahjahanbad and Tughlakabad etc. We have the walled city enclosed by the city wall, having various gates, viz., Delhi Gats, Turkman Gate, Ajmeri Gate, Kashmere Gate etc. The Rules of 1973 take into account some areas which are termed as "slum areas".
(43) The question is what meaning is to be given to the word "localities" in Rule 25. The word locality has been judicially construed not only by the Supreme Court, but also by some Courts in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has in (Sh. Navneet Ram Batra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) (6) at page 2146 while dealing with a case under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, said that the word "locality" is a word of "indefinite import". In my view, therefore, the word "locality" would take colour from other words used in the provision in which it occurs. In this view of the matter, it would be right to construe the word "locality" ejusdem genres with the word "colony". In other words, the localities which are postulated by the provisions of Rule 25(1)(c)(i) are those which can be considered to be either an approved or an unapproved colony. In other words, the areas which have been subjected to active and current concepts of town and country planning, in so far as they relate to development of "Banjar" land into' planned urban housing areas. -
(44) Similar view has prevailed in the United States of America in Selectmen of Clinton v. Worcester Consol, St. Ry. Co., 85 N. E. 507, 510, 199 Mss. 279(7). For this reason, I think it would, be right to construes the word "locality" as indicating colonised areas, areas which were colonised by design and not by mere accident. In other words "locality" would not include an area which was subject matter of haphazard development. It is the case of respondent No. 3 that the "localities" mentioned in Rule 25(l)(c)(i) excludes areas in a village. This view finds support from what is stated by the Full Bench in , where it is dealing with the conditions which were imposed on Cooperative Societies at a time of giving land on lease. The condition that was imposed was that neither the member nor his/her wife/husband including unmarried children including dependent relativss, should own in full or in part on free-hold or lease-hold basis any residential plot or house in the urban areas of Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. Urban areas of Delhi would clearly excludes all residential houses md all residential plots in the villages in the Union Territory of Delhi.
(45) Respondent No. 3 also relies upon a letter dated February 4 bearing No. F. 5(12) /71/CS/DDA/Part written by the Delhi Development Authority to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, staling that Savitri Nagar is within the "Lal Dora" areas of a village. The "Lal Dora" area in a village indicates that area of the village in which it is permissible to build a house. In this connection the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, as extended to Delhi may be referred to.
(46) A Report from the mere assertion that the property hearing No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi, is located in an area which is an urban area, no document has been brought to my notice by the petitioner and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which indicates that the said property is a part of an "approved or an unapproved colony" of Delhi. As no material has been placed before me 'to establish that House No. 145, Savitri Nagar is in a planned housing complex in the urban area of Delhi, it is difficult for me to hold that owning of the same could invite any disqualification, assuming that the said Rule applies to the case of respondent No. 3.
(47) Respondent No. 3, however, contends that he docs not own property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, nor did he ever own it. In order to establish that he referred to and relied upon, before the authorities concerned with the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, i.e. the Registrar, and the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, a decree of the court passed in an arbitration matter, (set out extent here before & asserted that he was never the owner of property No. 145, Savitri Nagar. it 's contended by him before me as was contended before the authorities concerned, that a decree passed by the competent court is final and binding, and the only way the said decree could be negated is to take appropriate proceedings for getting a declaration that the said decree is non-est, having been obtained by fraud or collusion. according to law. Admittedly no such proceedings have been taken. In fact, it is clear from the order of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal that the Tribunal has acted on the principle that the decree of the civil court is final and binding upon itself as also on the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Tribunal, in my view, was right in holding in the appeal against the order of the Registrar, that the Registrar was in error in ignoring the decree of the civil court 'passed in the arbitration matter.
(48) In this writ petition, the petitioner Society challenges the order of the Cooperative Tribunal, inter alia holding that the decree of the civil court is final and binding. The decree passed by the civil court in arbitration proceedings is to the effect that the property bearing No. 145, Savitri Nagar was held by respondent No. 3 only as "benami" ; that the real owner of the property was brother-in-law of Baldev Dutt. That decree of the civil court has not been challenged by the petitioner Society by taking any step's to have the same set aside in accordance with law, no have any proceedings taken to have the same declared to have no effect in law. In my view, as the decree of the civil court stands, it is not open to the authorities under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act to question the same. As no proceeding-- have been taken by the petitioner Society, it does not lie in its mouth to question the same before an authority, like the Registrar. Cooperative Socieities, no- the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, has authority to question the decree of the civil court with respect to the property in question, namely, 145, Savitri Nagar. To permit such an authority to question the validity or efficacy or finality of a decree of a civil court in a proceeding before itself, would destroy the rule of law. No steps have been taken by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to have the said decree annulled in proper proceedings (assuming that he has jurisdiction to take such proceedings). In the instant case, the petitioner Society has also not taken steps to have the said decree annulled, assuming that it has locus standi to so move in the matter.
(49) In view of my finding that it is not open to the petitioner Society to question the validity of the decree before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the said decree operates with full force, and it is not permissible either for the petitioner Society or the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to come to a conclusion which is contrary to the decree. As held by the decree of the competent civil court, property No- 145, Savitri Nagar was held by respondent No. 3 only on behalf of his brother-in-law, namely, Shri Sushil Kumar, who was the real owner of the same. Respondent No. 3. not being the owner of property No. 145, Savitri Nagar, the disqualification postulated by Rule 25(1) (c)(i), does not in fact operate against respondent No. 3 as he was, from the beginning, a "benamidar". As respondent No. 3 was never the owner of property bearing No. 145, Savitri Nagar, rule 25(1) (c)(i) has no application to the instant case.
(50) In the circumstances, the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies' order could not stand.
(51) As regards the competency of the appeal to the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, it is sufficient to say that under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, read with Section 76, any matter that decides the question which relates to membership of the Society, is appealable under the said provisions. In. support of this proposition, Mr. Jaitley, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, has cited V. Raphava Reddy and others v. The District Collector, Warangel and others, 2nd 1974 Andhra Pradesh 842(8). To me it is clear that in any matter Involving Rule 25(l)(c)(i), membership of a member is called in question, and as such any decision given relative thereto, is appealable to the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. I, therefore, hold that the appeal to the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal was competent. Having held that an authority, like the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, cannot call a subsisting decree of a civil court in question, the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in appeal. The effect of this is that the respondent continues to be a member of the petitioner Society with a consequential right to allotment of a plot of land.
(52) The relief which is to be granted under Article 226 of. the Constitution of India, is discretionary relief, and in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, I do not think that the order of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal calls for any intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. .
(53) For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails. The. respondent Baldev Dutt has been driven to contest various proceedings by a Cooperative Society of which he was a founds member. He is entitled to the costs of this writ petition. I quantify the same at Rs. 2,500.