JUDGMENT 1. - Justice stands on the pillars of justice and delivery of justice. The Constitution of India in its preamble declares that we, the people of India, have solemnly resolved to secure to all its citizens, justice-Social, Economic and Political. Unless there is an union of all the three there cannot be any justice. 2. Cooperative movement developed in the country and particularly in the State of Rajasthan after 1949, of course, in some parts of the State it was in existence even prior to independence. The Cooperative Act of 1953 was enacted for the first time to secure the objects laid down in Chapter-IV of the Constitution. The Act of 1953 was repealed and the Act of 1965 was enacted. The whole concept of the Cooperative movement was that the State will act as a guide and Philosopher and entrust all the powers to the Societies to achieve the objects laid down in the Constitution of India, particularly Chapter-IV. There is a cry for the equality. Equality of justice, equality of economic status, equality of awakening and opportunity of equality in matters of political and other allied matters. Rajasthan Cooperative Rules, 1966 under Rule-2(m) defines Housing Cooperative Societies. The definition reads as under : 2(m)."Housing Society" means a society the object of which is providing members with dwelling houses or the construction of houses for its members or the financing or facilitating the construction of houses by its members." Rule-9 clause (5) of the Rules reads as under:- (5) Housing Society : (a) Tenant ownership Housing Society -Housing Societies where land is held either on leasehold or freehold basis by societies and houses are owned or, are to be owned by members. (b) Tenant Co-partnership-Housing Societies which hold Housing Society, both land and buildings either on leasehold or freehold basis and allot them to their members. (c) Other Housing-House Mortgage Societies and Societies. House Construction Societies. There are three types of Cooperative Societies under Rule 9(5) and they have been specifically classified, (a) Tenant ownership Housing Society (b) Tenant Co- partnership Housing Society and (c) Housing Mortgage Societies and House Construction Societies. Housing Mortgage Societies and House Construction Societies do not hold land for the purpose of use and occupation of its members. This class of society is a financing society or a society which constructs the houses and carries on the business of construction of houses. Housing Mortgage Societies and House Construction Societies do not hold land for the purpose of use and occupation of its members. This class of society is a financing society or a society which constructs the houses and carries on the business of construction of houses. The other class of housing societies can only function if they hold the land either on lease hold or free hold basis. Mr. Joshi appearing on behalf of the petitioner was asked specifically to state under which class his Society falls. He submits that the disputed land is neither held by the Society on lease hold or on free hold basis. He submits that the agreement to sell was entered into in the year 1975 with the Khatedars non-petitioners. 3. Mr. Bardhar appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner submits that the suit for specific performance of the contract was filed by the petitioner Society against the khatedars on the basis of the agreement to sell which is said to have been entered into in the year 1975. The suit was dismissed in the year 1986 or so. This position remains controverted. However. Mr. Joshi submits that the State Government declared this land as Sawai Chak as such, the suit was got dismissed in default. Mr. Bardhar submits that even if the declaration of the Sawai Chak, the appeal has been preferred and is pending. It was also submitted by Mr. Bardhar that the Khatedar tenants are the tenants of the land and they are in possession of the property. He submits that this is evident from the record of the Court including the report of the Commissioner. 4. Mr. Joshi submits that the suit was filed on behalf of the Society and application for amendment was moved on 3rd January, 1989. The suit was instituted before two years. It was stated by Mr Joshi that there are number of members to whom disputed land has been allotted and it will be very difficult for the members to file the suit, as such, he wants to file the suit in the representative capacity and wants to amend the suit accordingly. 5. It is very difficult to understand the arguments of Mr. Joshi. How the Society can allot the land which is not held by the Society either on lease bold or free-hold basis. Mr. 5. It is very difficult to understand the arguments of Mr. Joshi. How the Society can allot the land which is not held by the Society either on lease bold or free-hold basis. Mr. Joshi himself submits that this land is not held by the society but is a Government land and the Government is issuing Pattas or lease hold to the members of the Society. Even if it is taken on its face value then the Government has no jurisdiction to do so as the land cannot be given on lease-hold to the members of the Society in preference to the weaker sections of the society. It may also amount to assisting the land grabbers mafia. The land cannot be allotted under any of the law on lease-hold basis, without following the procedure of any law laid down. Mr. Joshi is not in a position to pint out under what law the State Government is allotting the land to the members of the Society. He submits that it is a case of regularisation Regularisation is an individual act done in favour of any person by the State Government. The society does not come into picture at all. This Court has already held in Civil Revision Petition No. 355/84 (Smt. Ram Kumari v. Dr. Manju Bhatnagar) that the Society can only allot the land which is held by the Society either on lease-hold or on free hold basis. The Society cannot allot any land other than the land referred above. The system of getting the land on agreement to sale basis from the poor tenants and then selling it on exorbitant prices to the people and earning out of it may be an act against the spirit of the Constitution which cannot be allowed to be continued. In the instant case, no member can be allotted land under the rules as the Society is neither lease holder nor free holder of the land. The Society is not doing the business of mortgaging the house and constructing the houses. Mr. Joshi is not in a position even to say under what classification his Society exists and what is the classification of his Society. The Society is not doing the business of mortgaging the house and constructing the houses. Mr. Joshi is not in a position even to say under what classification his Society exists and what is the classification of his Society. Societies arc classified under Rule-9 and at least the Society must know the nature of its classification to show that it is not a defunct society or the society of land grabbers or the Society dealing with the property at the cost of the power (poor) citizens. 6. Cooperative movement which was a movement for the betterment of the country, has not earned a good name because of the activities of such Societies who are dealing in the lands without holding the land on a free hold or lease hold basis. Application moved for the amendment changes the character of the suit, nature of the suit and the Society has no locus-standi also to deal with such suits. Of course, any person whose land has been regularised or who has been issued a Patta can agitate the matter as the Patta might have been issued in his individual capacity; as no Patta or sale-deed can be executed under Rule-9 in favour of the Society as the condition precedent for becoming a Housing Cooperative Society is that the Society must hold the land either on free hold basis or on lease hold basis for the purpose of allotment to its members. Apart from that the petitioner Society has no locus- standi to file a suit in such matters and represent the cause of the persons who are not getting any benefit under the Cooperative Law and who do not get any right under the Cooperative Law. If there is any individual right they can file the suit and the observations made in disposing of this petition will not prejudice their case. 7. Revision petition is dismissed with costs. Petitioner will pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the non-petitioner.Revision dismissed. *******