LT. COL. SURINDER KUMAR DUTT AND ORS. A  v.  

SHAKTI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING LTD. AND ORS.  

FEBRUARY 3, 1993  

(LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, 0, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY 8  AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.)  

Delhi Cooperative Societies Ac~ 1972:  

Sections 3, 40 and 55. c  Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973-Rule 24.  

Cooperative House Building Society-Dispute among members- Registrar-Foroidding holding of elections-High Court in Letters Patent  Appeal appointing Retired High Court Judge as Administrator-Ad- D  ministrator preparing list of members-Report of Administrator assailed on  ground that 'simplified procedure' indicated by Registrar not followed - Supreme Court upholding Report of Administrator.  

The Cooperative House Building Society - Respondent No.1 in the  appeal was formed with a view to provide house-sites to its members. A E  site was acquired but before the plots could be distributed among the  members, disputes arose among them. Various groups in the society tried  to gain control of the society's affairs and a number of suits were filed and  several interim orders obtained.  

The Registrar of Cooperative Societies found that on account of the F  infighting among members the very object of the government in providing  land on concessional rate to the society stood in jeopardy; fed up with the  -ndlng disputes be passed an order forbidding holding of elections to  the Committee of the Society.  

The aforesaid order of the Registrar was challenged in a writ  petition. The Single Judge who beard the matter, made several attempts  to resolve the differences between the parties but found no room for any  settlement. He heard the Writ Petition and dismissed the same.  

G  

A letters Patent Appeal was filed, the Division Bench also undertook H  427

428 SUPREME COURT REPORb (1993] 1 S.C.R.  

A to settle the disputes. It succeeded partially, with the consent of the parties,  the Division Bench appointed a former Judge of the High Court as the  Administrator, to finalise the list of membership. He thoroughly examined  all claims and prepared a list of 219 members, which was approved by the  Court by order dated 19.8.85 and the Administrator was directed to  

B proceed with the allotment of plots.  

Before the aforesaid directions could be complied with certain mem- bers made an application for review of th~ order dated 19.5.1986. A  direction was sought that the Administrator prepare a fresh list following  the 'simplified procedure' notified by the Registrar of Cooperative  

C Societies through his letter dated 5.7.1977. The Division Bench accepted  the Review Petition, and directed the Administrator by its order dated  17.5.1989 to prepare a fresh list. The Administrator prepared a list con- taining 221 members, and submitted bis Report. This created a ticklish  situation inasmuch as the total number of plots available was 210 whereas  

D the number of members eligible was 221. Disputes again started as to the  manner In which the plots should be distributed.  

The four appellants who are members of the Society, questioned the  correctness or the Division Bench order dated 17th May, 1989 in their  appeal to this Court contending that their names were found far above  

E serial No. 210 In the list approved by the Court by its order dated 19th  May, 1986, whereas their names came down to 216 to 219 in the list  prepared by the Administrator OD the basis of the 'simplified procedure',  and that for that reason they may not be entitled to allotment or plots.  

F  Disposing of the Appeal, this Court,  

HELD : 1. The verification or membership bas been done by the  Administrator, a very responsible person, a former Judge of the Deihl High  Court. One exercise by such a person is sufficient, two exercises are more  than enongb. It cannot be an external process. It bas to stop at some stage,  

G and it should stop now. If any person who bas some claim to membership  of the society bas either not chosen to come forward and put forward bis  claim before the Administrator in response to the notices issued by him  or bas chosen not to question the rejection of bis claim by the Ad- ministrator before the Delhi High Court or bas failed to put forward bis  claim at least In these proceedings, it must be presumed that be bas no  

H letlltlmate claim to the membership or the society. (4338-C]

LT. COL SURINDER "· SHAKTI CO-OP HOUSE BLDG. 429  

2. When the society was initially formed the land allotted to it was A  not of much value. Several persons who initially became members either  resigned or took back their deposits and walked out. Some did not respond  to the notices of the society, and did not remit the amounts as and when  called upon. Now that the land has become valuable, people appear to be  coming forward with claims to membership. No value can be attached to B  such belated claims. [ 433D]  

3. In response to individual and public notices issued by the Ad·  ministrator, at the time of preparing the first list, as many as 346 persons  laid claim to membership. After a thorough scrutiny the Administrator  rejected a large number of claims and finalised a list of 219 members. Even C  on the second occasion the Administrator went through an elaborate  exercise and finalised the list of 221 members prepared by the Ad·  ministrator and appended to his 10th report. It has to be treated as the  final and conclusive list. [433E·F]  

4. The Administrator shall carve out 221 plots in the place of 210 D  plots within a period of two months from today, with the help of an  Architect or Engineer, as he may choose. He shall allot the same among  the 221 members included in the second list by adopting an appropriate  method i.e., by drawal of lots or by some other fair method. [ 433G, 4348)  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 430 ol  1993.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.89 of the Delhi High Court  in L.P .A. No. 149 of 1982.  

M.L. Verma, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ms. Monika Mobil and Ms. Bina  Gupta for the Appellants.  

Awadh Behari Rohtagi (for the Administrator).  

E  

F  

G R.K. Jain, M.C. Bhandare, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, S.K. Jain, A.K.  Sharma, N.S. Bisht, Sudarsh Menon, A.K. Gupta, R.P. Singh, Vijay  Panjwani (for intervener).  

Ashok Mathur, A-K. Srivastava and R.C. Kaushik for the Respon- dents. H

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19')3] 1 S.C.R.  

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. Heard the counsel for the parties. Leave  granted.  

B Shakti Cooperative House Building Society Lld. was formed with a  view to provide house-sites to its members. A site was acquired by before  the plots could be distributed among the members, disputes arose among  

them. Various groups in the society tried to gain control of the affairs of  

the society. Number of suits were filed and several interim orders obtained.  

The Registrar of Cooperative Societi)ls found that on account of the  C infighting among the members the very object of the government in provid-

ing land on concessional rate to the society stood in jeopardy. Evidently  fed up with the unending disputes between the members, the Registrar  passed an order forbidding holding of elections to the committee of the  Society. this order of the Registrar was challenged in the Delhi High Court  

D by way of a writ petition (No. 2920 of 1981). The writ petition came up for  hearing before a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, S.B. Wad,  J. The learned Judge made several attempts to resolve the differences  between the parties but found ultimately that there was no room for any  settlement. He heard the writ petition on merits and by his order dated  12.10.1982 dismissed the same. A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred  

E against the said order. The Division Bench too undertook to settle the .:&._  disputes among the members. It succeeded partially in doing so inasmuch  as the Bench appointed, with the consent of the parties before it, an  

Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the society to finalise the  membership list and to hold elections. On election of the new committee, ,  

F the Administrator was to handover the charge to such committee. A former  Judge of the Delhi High Court Sri P.N. Khanna was appointed as the  Administrator. In pursuance of the said 'settlement, several suits pending  in the courts were withdrawn. The ~dministrator submitted his reports  from time to time. Several persons who were not parties to the proceedings  came forward claiming to be members of the society. The Administrator  

G · thoroughly examfued all claims and prepared a list of 206 members. It was  approved by the court by its order dated 19.8.1985. By this order, the  Division Bench directed that no elections need take place as originally  directed and that the power of allotment of plots be given to the said  Administrator himself. This order too appears to be made on the basis of  

H consent of the parties before the court. The Administrator was accordingly

LT. COL SURINDER v. SHAKTI CO-OP HOUSE BLDG. (REDDY, J.] 431  

directed to proceed with the allotment of plots among the said 206 mem- A  bers. Four more members were added by a subsequent order. Some more  applications were pending at that stage before the court claiming member- ship. After receiving the 7th and fmal report of the Administrator dated  175.1986, the court approved a list of 219 members by its order dated  19.5.1986. It also accepted the criteria for allotment of plots evolved by the B  Administrator. It gave certain directions for the future working of the  society. The Registrar was asked to verify and adopt the list of members,  submitted by the Administrator, within two months.  

Before the directions of the court given on 19.5.1986 could be com- plied with, an application was filed before the court by certain members C  for review of the order dated 195.1986. They asked for a direction to the  Administrator to prepare a fresh list of the members following the  'simplified procedure' notified by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies  through his letter dated 5.7.1977 addressed to all the House Building  Cooperative Societies in Delhi. It was submitted that the said simplified D  procedure was being follo.yed by all the Housing Societies in Delhi an<!  that there is no reason why an exception should be made in the case of this ·  society. Under an elaborate order dated 17th May, 1989 the Division BeoCh  accepted the Review Petition and directed that Administrator to prepare  a fresh list of members in accordance with the simplified procedure and  to determine the entitlement to plots in terms of the said simplified E  procedure among the several members of the society. The Administrator  was asked to complete the said exercise within the shortest possible time,  to wit-two months. lo accordance with the direction dated 17th May, 1989  the Administrator prepared and submitted his 10th report on 19th August,  1989. This list contained 221 members. This created a ticklish situation F  inasmuch as the total number of plots available was 210 whereas the  number of members eligible was 221. Disputes again started as to the  manner in which the plots should be distributed among members. Four  members, appellants herein, preferred S.L.P. No. 11072 of 1989 (from  which this appeal arises) questioning the correctness of the order of the  Division Bench dated 17th May, 1989. They were aggrieved by the fact that G  whereas their names were found far above serial No. 210 in the list  approved by the court by its order dated 19th May, 1986, thier names came  down to. 216 to 219 in the list prepared by the Administrator on the basis  of simplified procedure. The available plots being 210, the logical conse- quence of the said demotion was that they may not be entitled to allotment H

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R.  

A of plots now. They would have to wait till the society acquires some other  land and carves out plots.  

This court too tried to bring about the settlement between the parties  

but to no avail. The order dated 19.8.1992 passed by this court shows that  B all efforts at compromise between the parties failed. Accordingly, the  

matter was directed to be posted for hearing on merits.  

Before us, however, all the parties present suggested a solution which  

has appealed to us. The suggestion is that in place of 210 plots, the  Administrator should, with the help of an Architect, carve out µ1 plots  

C and allot the same to all tbe 221 members included in the list appended to  the 10th report of the Administrator. The said list of 221, it is suggested,  should be treated as final. But before we could accept the said suggestion,  we wanted to satisfy ourselves that the list prepared by the Administrator  was a properly prepared one. For this purpose, we have looked into the  

D proceedings leading to the preparation of both the lists by the Ad- ministrator - the two lists being (1) the list containing 219 names which was  accepted by the court on 19th May, 1986 and (2) the list of 221 members  appended to the 10th report. The material placed before us discloses that  the Administrator had followed an elaborate, exhaustive and fair procedure  before preparing the list of 219 members which we may refer to hereinafter  

E as the 'first list'. He looked into the records of the society, other relevant  material and issued notices to all those persons who appeared to him to  have any claim to the membership of the society. The Administrator also  published a notice in the newspaper calling upon persons having a claim  to the membership of the said society to come forward and establish their  

F claim before him. Number of claims were received. He made a thorough  enquiry and on that basis prepared the first list. Even for preparing the  second list, the Administrator has taken a good amount of trouble and  finalised it with the help of the authorities of the cooperative department.  It is true that the second list contains two more names over and above the  

G first list but what is significant is that all the 219 members included in the  first list also find place in the second list. The only variation is that the  second list contains two more names over and above the 219 included in  the first list but with changed serial numbers. This has made our task easy.  Even Mr. Sanwal (11th respondent in this appeal) who appeared in person  and who claimed to be one of the founder-members of the society, also  

H expressed his agreement to the said suggestion. Mr. Sanwal, however,

LT. COL SURINDER v. SHAICl1£0-0P HOUSE BWG. [REDDY, J.) 433  

suggested that there may be some more persons, atleast four, who may have A  

~  some claim to membership. We are not satisfied The verification of  membership has been done by a very responsible person, a former Judge  of Delhi High Court. One exercise by such a person is sufficient and two  exercise arc more than enough. It cannot be an eternal process.. It bas to  stop at some stage. And we think, it would stop now. If any person who B  bas some claim to membership of the society bas either not chosen to come  forward and put forward his claim before the Administrator in response to  the notices issued by him or bas chosen not to question the rejection of his --. claim by ihe Administrator before the Delhi High Court or has failed to  put forward his claim atleast in tilese proceedings, we must presume that  he bas no legitimate claim to the membership of the society. c  

It appears that when the society was initially formed the land allotted  to it was not of much value. Several persons who initially became members  either resigned or took back their deposits and walked out. Some did not  respond to' the notices of the society and did not remit the amounts as and D ... when called upon. Now that the land bas become valuable, people appear  to be coming forward with claims to membership. No valu~ can be attached  to such belated claims. Indeed, it appears that in response to individual  and public notices issued by the Administrator, at the time of preparing  the first list, as many as 346 persons laid claim to membership. After a  thorough scrutiny the Administrator rejected a large number of claims and E  

"' finalised a list of 219 members. Even on the second occasion the Ad-ministratot went through an elaborate exercise and finalised the. list 221  members including the 219 contained in the first list. In the circumstances,  we treat the list of 221 members prepared by the Administrator and  appended to his 10th report, which we are referring to as the second list, ·p  as the final and conclusive list. We direct. the learned Administrator to  carve out 221 plots out of the land allotted to the society in place of the  

~ present 210 plots. The 221 plots must conform to the categories in which  221 members are placed. In other words, all the 221 members in the list  

· accepted by us should be provided with a plot each. The Administrator  may carry out the said direction with the help of an Architect or Engineer, G  as he may choose.  

.... One of the counsel contended before us that some of the members  in the second list have meanwhile acquired some other plots or houses in  the city and thereby have incurred a disqualification. We do not wish to H

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19'J3) 1 S.C.R.  

A cote~ imy such dispute or do we propose to allow any revision of the  said list of 221 members.  

We direct that the Administrator shall carve out the said 221 plots  as directed herein, within a period of two months from today. He shall allot  the same among the 221 members included in the second list by adopting  

B an appropriate method i.e., by drawal of lots or by some other fair method.  

We make it clear that even if any claims for membership are pending  before the Delhi High Court and even if any of such claims are accepted,  such members have to await their turn till the society acquires fresh land,  

c if any. They shall not be entitled to claim any plot out of the present side.  Post for further orders after three months i.e., on 30th April, 1993.  

N.V.K. Appeal disposed of.