Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"4. It is an admitted fact that the society has sold the land of the common plot to the petitioner. It can hardly be disputed that the land of the common plot in any residential society is meant for common use and common purposes of all members of the society, and all members of the society, so far as common plot and common facilities and common area are concerned, they are holding joint and common interest in such portion. It is not the case of the respondent society that the land has been permitted to be used for creating of any common facilities for the members of the society. The resolution of the society goes to show that upon the application of the trustees of the trust, the society has resolved for sale of the land of common plot admeasuring 400 sq.yards to the trust at Rs.200/- per sq. yard and against the total consideration of Rs.80,001/-.

5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel is that when the society had unanimously resolved for sale of the property, the petitioner in capacity as the member of the society, could not have objected to such sale nor the Nominee could entertain such grievance of the petitioner as against the majority will of the members of the society.

6. Had it been a case where the society had resolved for the sale of its land over which there is no common interest of all the members, it may stand on different footing. But, in a case where a common plot is reserved for common facilities and common purposes of all members of the society, even a single member who is having right for utilization of the common plot can raise the grievance against any illegal action of the members of the Managing Committee of the society or may be of the General Board of the society for sale of such property and the reason being that he has the interest for utilization of the common plot together with the other members of the society. Further in any residential area or when the land is converted into N.A. for residential purposes, there is requirement to provide common plot for common facilities of the residents of the area and excluding the common plot and the roads the other area may be available to the original owner for utilization for residential purpose by himself or by selling the same to some third party. Therefore, if the common plot is earmarked for common use and common facility of a residential colony, which in the present case is the society, the majority of the members of the society, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered for the sake of examination, cannot take away the right to use the common plot for common facilities of other members who may be in minority. If such an approach is permitted in cooperative societies, it would result into encouring the oppression over minority members by the majority members and thereby the majority members would be in a position to nullify the rights for common use of the common plot which would run counter to the Cooperative Principles and would also frustrate the purpose for which the common plot is earmarked in any residential colony. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that no common plot which is earmarked at the time of N.A. can be converted for any exclusive use of any member or any person without prior permission of the competent authority under the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with the rules. It is not the case of the society that there was alteration in the N.A. plan which was approved by the competent authority under the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with the rules and the common plot had ceased to be common plot. But, it appears from the resolution of the society that the common plot has continued as the common plot and the very area of common plot is resolved to be sold to the trustees of the petitioner trust. It may be recorded that even if section 73 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is read in its liberal interpretation so as to vest the final authority of the society in the General Body of the members, such powers are subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. There is no power under the Act contemplated or vested with the General Body to take away the interest created in favour of the member over the common plot for common use. Further, such powers cannot be read to commit illegality of converting the land for exclusive view of any member in contravention to the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with the Rules. Therefore, under these circumstances, merely because the General Board had passed the resolution for sale of the common plot is not valid ground to deny the entertainment of the grievance by one member of the society who had common interest for common use of the common plot of the society. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted." (Emphasis supplied)