REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3963-3965  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) NOs. 29157-29159 OF 2011)

NISHA SINGLA  ........APPELLANT  

             Versus

ADARSH COLONY COOPERATIVE                       .......RESPONDENTS HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

J U D G M E N T

Hemant Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

2. Challenge  in  the  present  appeals  is  to  an  order  passed  on

16.05.2011 in the review application filed by the appellant and the order

dated 09.12.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 19358 of 2002 by the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana.

1

3. The  case  has  a  chequered  history.  The  appellant  is  one  of  the

founder members of the Society1 established to provide residential plots

to  its  members.   The  Appellant  deposited  some  amounts  between

12.05.1975 to 15.01.1982 for the purpose of allotment of a residential

plot. The credit balance as on 15.01.1982 is said to be Rs. 11,475/-. The

Society made a request to the Chairman of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana

for  development  of  the  land.  The  Improvement  Trust  later  framed  a

Scheme  of  the  acquisition  of  land.  The  Society  apprehended  that  in

execution of the Scheme framed, the Society was likely to be deprived of

the land. The Society filed a Writ Petition No. 1625/1981 before the High

Court  raising  a  grievance  that  Society  has  purchased  some land  and

formed a Cooperative Society for building of houses for its members and

that the Scheme of the Improvement Trust will jeopardise the desires of

the members of the Society to own a plot for their residences.  The High

Court  passed  an  order  on  26.11.1981  directing  that  the  State

Government should find a way either by amending rules or by issuing

instructions under the existing laws for accommodating the Society.

4. It appears that the Punjab Government accepted the request of the

Society but put a condition that the plots will be allotted to those who

were the members of the Society till 1982. Such fact is asserted in the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1.  In pursuance of

such decision, 281 plots in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana became

available to the Society for allotment to its members in the year 1983.

1 Adarsh Colony Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Ludhiana

2

5. Shri C.L. Azad, Inspector House Building Board Society, Ludhiana

was  appointed  as  Administrator  of  the  Society  on  22.11.1983  on  the

expiry of term of the Managing Committee of the Society for the purpose

of arranging the elections for the new Managing Committee and to run

the affairs of the Society under Section 26(1-D) of the Punjab Cooperative

Societies Act 1961.2

6. However, it appears that Shri C. L. Azad allotted 281 plots to the

members of the Society without framing any criterion. Such allotments

became subject matter of  challenge on behalf  of  the appellant before

Deputy  Registrar  Cooperative  Societies,  Ludhiana  in  a  reference  of

dispute under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act.  

7. The Deputy Registrar, Ludhiana cancelled the allotments made by

Shri  C.  L.  Azad  on  17.07.1984.  The  relevant  extracts  from the  order

passed for allotment of land to the members of the Society is as under:-

“As  it  was  a  common  dispute  for  the cancellation  of  the  allotment  made  by  the Administrator,  I  summoned  all  the  parties  on 17.7.1984  at  10.00  a.m.  in  may  office  for producing their version.

On 17.7.1984, the case was heard jointly and about 100 members came present. Sh. C.L. Jindal, Ex-Secy of the society and Sh. Chaman Lal Azad, the  Administrator  also  came  present.  The members who had attended the hearing told that the Administrator did not adopt any criteria for the allotment of the plots. 2. No justice has been done with those members who were members of the society at the time of acquisition of the land and most of the members were not allotted the plots.  3. The  letter  which  was  written  to  Sh.  K.K. Chadha  by  the  Administrator  through  Sh.  D.N.

2 The Act

3

Kapoor  on  24.3.1984  a  coy  of  which  has  been attached.  The  above  members  were  asked  to deposit the balance amount and for allotment of the plots by draw of lots.

But  at  the  time  of  making  the  allotment  of plots,  it  was  not  done,  rather  the  Administrator allotted the plots in an arbitrary manner. 4. The Administrator while making the allotment, did not keep in view the provisions of section 27(3) of  the  Act,  under  which  the  approval  of  the Registrar  is  necessary,  but  the administrator  did not obtain any approval.

I have inquired into all these points raised by the  members  and  the  written  statement  of  Sh. Chaman  Lal  Azad  dated  18.6.84  and  made inquiries from Sh. C.L. Jindal, Ex-Secretary.

After hearing the arguments of the members and  of  the  Administrator  of  the  society,  I  have come to the conclusion that the allotment was not made  in  a  proper  manner  because  the Administrator did not constitute any allotment sub- committee. 2. No criteria was adopted for allotment. 3. The  allotment  has  not  been  made  in  the presence of the members & it was also not done by draw of lots. 4. The  Administrator  also  did  not  obtain  the approval  of  the  Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies about the allotment of plots. 5. The allotment has been made by enrolling new members  whereas  the  old  members  who  were members of the society at the time of acquisition of land, have not been allotted the plots.

Keeping in view the above facts, I cancel the allotment  made  by  Sh.  Chaman  Lal  Azad, Administrator of the society. Sh. Chaman Lal Azad informed  the  court  that  the  election  to  the managing committee of the society has been fixed for 8.8.84, therefore, no allotment should be made till then.

The  Managing  Committee  should  make  out some criteria for the allotment of the plots. While framing the criteria, interest of the members who were members at the time of acquisition of land, should  also  be  kept  in  view  and  the  approval should be obtained from the general body.”  

4

8. The said order was challenged in an appeal.  The Joint Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Patiala allowed the appeal on 02.01.1985, but the

Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division on 09.06.1988 set aside the

order passed by the Joint Registrar. Thus, the order passed by the Deputy

Registrar on 17.07.1984 attained finality and continuous to be valid and

operative order.  

9. In  pursuance  of  the  order  passed  by  the  Deputy  Registrar  as

affirmed  by  the  Commissioner  (Appeals)  in  Revision,  a  General  Body

meeting of the Society was held on 27.09.1992.  In such meeting, it was

resolved to allot plots to the members.  The price was fixed at Rs. 100 per

sq. yard for the plot size up to 300 sq. yards and Rs. 300 per sq. yard for

the plot size more than 300 sq. yards.  In pursuance of such decision, the

appellant gave her acceptance on 30.07.1993 by filing an affidavit but

still reserving her right for allotment of 500 sq. yards plot. The appellant

said to the following effect:

“Please find enclosed herewith Affidavit in original as desired by the society but reserve my right for 500 yards plot.  I undertake to pay all the amount due from me or called by the society for the cost of plot including cost of enhancement, interest if any,  or  any  other  dues  called  by  the  managing committee  towards  of  differing  lawful  expenses when called for.

That  I  would  reimburse/pay to  the society  if any amount drawn by me any time.  I undertake to pay  all  expenses/dues/enhancement/interest  etc. etc. provided it is lawful or as per Rules.”  

10. The appellant again raised dispute under Sections 55 and 56 of the

Act.  The  matter  was  considered  by  Additional  Registrar  (Credit)

Cooperative Society, Punjab, wherein, the appellant sought allotment of

5

500  sq.  yards  plot  instead  of  plot  of  250  sq.  yards.   The  Additional

Registrar held that the appellant does not have any preferential right as

such right is alien to the concept of cooperative but in respect of the

allotment of 250 sq. yard’s plot, it was said to the following effect:  

“Issue No. 2:- The petitioner by her conduct of accepting the allotment of plot of 250 sq. yards, has  in  fact  admitted the legality  of  allotment of plots hence is barred to agitate this fact now. She was  given  the  chance  to  accept  the  allotment which  she  has  already  availed.  She  never surrendered  the  plot  allotted  to  her.  So  she  is barred  to  put  her  claim  as  per  the  principle  of estoppel, as she has already accepted plot allotted to  her.  I  have heard  the counsels  at  length and come to conclusion that in view of discussion held above, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner, hence the petition is dismissed.”

11. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Additional Registrar, the

appellant filed an appeal as contemplated under Section 68 of the Act

before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, wherein again, a finding was

returned that the appellant had already been allotted a plot of 250 sq.

yards.  Thus,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  appellant  has  deposited  any

earnest money for a bigger plot. Thus, there is no dispute regarding her

claim as made in the Petition. The Registrar held to the following effect:  

“…..The  petitioner  had  already  been  allotted  a plot of 250 sq. yards, which she preferred to retain. She had deposited earnest money for the same. She did  not  deposit  earnest  money for  a  bigger plot and thus, there was no dispute regarding her claim as made in the present petition and earlier reference  under  Section  55/56  before  the Additional Registrar (C) Cooperative Societies.  The petitioner  never  surrendered  or  offered  to surrender the plot already in her possession.  In these circumstances, I find there is no merit in the

6

averments made by the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is dismissed.”

12. The appellant still aggrieved against the order invoked a Revisional

Jurisdiction to the State Government under Section 69 of the Act.  The

Revision was dismissed by holding as under:

“I  have  carefully  considered  the  arguments  put forth by the ld. counsel for the parties, perused the written  statement  filed  by  the  respondent  no.  3 and gone through the record brought before me. I find that the petitioner had deposited Rs.25000/- and she was allotted a plot of 250 sq. yards.  Later on the petitioner started making a claim for 500 sq. yards plot but did not deposit any amount with the society and therefore her claim for allotment of 500 sq. yards plot  is not tenable at  this belated stage especially when as per the counsel for the society at present there is no vacant 500 sq. yards plot  with  the  society.  Moreover,  most  of  the members  have  constructed  their  houses  on  the plots allotted to them.  I also do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned orders, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.”

13. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.

17742 of 2001 which was withdrawn on 23.08.2002 with liberty to file a

fresh petition after giving material facts. The fresh Writ Petition3 filed by

the  appellant,  was  dismissed  on  09.12.2002.  The  appellant  filed  Civil

Appeal No. 2068 of 2006 before this Court against such order passed by

the High Court.  The Civil  Appeal  was dismissed on 25.01.2011 giving

liberty to the appellant to seek review of the order. In pursuance of such

liberty,  the  appellant  filed  Review Petition,  which  Review Petition  was

dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2011.   

3 Writ Petition (C) No. 19358 of 2002

7

14. The appellant in the rejoinder affidavit has attached a letter dated

23.01.1985  communicating  a  list  of  members  of  the  Society  to  the

Administrator, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. The name of the appellant

appears at serial no. 28 bearing Membership No. 541 to the effect that

plot no. 41-D had been allotted to her.  

15. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri C. L. Jindal – on behalf of the

Society (respondent no.1), it is averred that Shri C.L. Azad allotted one

plot measuring 250 sq. yards to the appellant out of 281 plots allotted by

him as an Administrator of the Society. Thereafter, the General House of

the Society in its meeting held on 04.04.1993 finalized the criteria for

allotment of plots including the price to be paid by the members of the

Society at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq. yard for the plot size up to 300 sq.

yards and Rs. 300 per sq. yard for the plot size more than 300 sq. yards.

In  terms  of  the  criteria  adopted,  Society  allotted  same  plots  to  202

members out of 281. The draw of lots were held on 09.05.1993 for the

remaining  plots.  The appellant  preferred  to  retain  the  plot  which  was

cancelled by depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- at the rate of Rs. 100 per

sq. yards. The appellant has not deposited the amount for the bigger plot

of 500 sq. yards.  In the counter-affidavit, it is also averred that plot no.

41-D re-allotted to the appellant has been illegally allotted in favour of

Shri Ashish Gupta son of Shri T. R. Gupta the then Honorary Secretary of

the Society and there are more than 40 other cases where plots allotted

to the members have been illegally allotted.  The relevant assertion in

the counter-affidavit of the Society reads as under:  

8

“…..The  present  Management  filed  an  appeal before  the  Financial  Commissioner,  Cooperation, Punjab  challenging  the  order  of  bifurcation,  etc. The Financial  Commissioner,  Cooperation,  Punjab passed orders dated 17.03.2011 holding that any further allotment of land would not be given to the second society which has been carved out of the present  society  of  non-allottee  members.   After assuming the office, it was found by the present Management of the Society that the Plot No. 41-D in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar which was re-allotted to  the  petitioner  Smt.  Nisha  Singla  had  been illegally  swindled  in  favour  of  Shri  Ashish  Gupta son  of  Shri  T.R.  Gupta the then Hony.  Secretary. There  are  more  than  40 other  cases  where plot allotted  to  the  members  had  been  illegally swindled.”

16. In this factual background, the argument of the learned counsel for

the appellant is that the appellant has not been given possession of plot

bearing no. 41-D and that she has been running from pillar to post for the

last four decades. Even if, the appellant is not entitled to 500 sq. yards

plot, but the entitlement of the appellant for 250 sq. yards is not disputed

therefore, the appellant is entitled to possession of the plot so allotted to

her earlier by the Administrator and later re-allotted by the Society.  Since

the possession of the plot has not been handed over, therefore, the entire

proceedings have been conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the

appellant  as  the  genuine  grievance  of  the  appellant  has  not  been

addressed.  

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the

appellant has never raised a grievance that she has not been delivered

possession of the plot allotted but, the facts on record, particularly on the

basis of counter-affidavit of the respondents, leaves no manner of doubt

9

that  the possession of  plot  allotted to the appellant who is  a founder

member since the year 1975 has not been given to the appellant.  

18. Thus, we find that the possession of the plot measuring 250 sq.

yards has not been handed over to the appellant as projected before this

Court. The appellants cannot be deprived of a plot allotted to her merely

on  the  basis  that  she  has  not  made  any  grievance  in  respect  of

possession of the plot allotted on the basis of technicities. Therefore, in

the absence of any determination of such fact and to do complete justice

in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution,  we deem it appropriate to

direct  the  Registrar  of  Cooperative  Societies,  Punjab  to  conduct  an

enquiry either himself or through such officer as he may deem fit to find

out; (i) whether the appellant was allotted plot by Shri C. L. Azad, the

Administrator, and (ii) that after such allotments having been set aside

on 17.07.1984, whether fresh allotment was made to the appellant by the

Society.  

19. If  such  allotment  is  found  to  be  made,  the  appellant  would  be

entitled to possession of the plot of 250 sq. yards.  If it is found that the

plot allotted to the appellant is not available, the Registrar or its delegate

shall pass such necessary order to redress the grievance of the appellant

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. In case,

there is a suitable plot available, then the Registrar or its delegate shall

allot a suitable plot out of the plots allotted to the Society located in Bhai

Randhir Singh Nagar.   

20. We hope that the necessary exercise shall be completed by giving

opportunity of hearing to the affected persons preferably within a period

10

of  four  months from the date  certified copy of  the  order  is  produced

before  the  Registrar  of  Cooperative  Society  Punjab.  With  the  said

directions, the appeals stand disposed of.  

..………..………...........................J.    (Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud)

…….......................................J.        (Hemant Gupta)

New Delhi, April 16, 2019.

11