Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(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.

(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.

(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.