Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 570 (SC)

Charanjit Singh v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh

2025-02-12

J.B.PARDIWALA, R.MAHADEVAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. These appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1175 of 2010, LPA No. 1365 of 2012 and LPA No. 1384 of 2012 respectively dated 6th March 2020 by which the High Court dismissed all the four appeals filed by the appellants herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. 4. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be summarized as under: (i) On 28.05.1991 the Chandigarh Administration floated the "Allotment of Land to Co-operative House Buildings Societies Scheme, 1991", to promote housing and ensure utilisation of land. Clause 6 of this scheme envisages the conditions for persons to be eligible members of the Society. (ii) Chandigarh Administration laid down a Policy on 04.05.1999 for allotment of surrendered flats/plots. The Policy stipulated that: (a) Flats surrendered by any Cooperative House Building Society cannot remain vacant and should be offered to the senior most eligible member of the society. (b) In case of any confusion regarding eligibility and bona-fides of a member on the waiting list, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies must be consulted. (iii) On 05.10.2001 a letter was issued by Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Chandigarh, to the General Secretary of the Society. The letter clarifies that substitution of members may be done, after obtaining clearance from the Registrar. (iv) An allotment letter was issued on 25.01.2002 by the Chandigarh Housing Board in favour of the Respondent No. 4 Housing Society, allotting plots/land on freehold/chunk basis for construction of multi-storeyed flats. Clause 21 of this letter allows for substitution of members, who are eligible as per the 1991 scheme. (v) Clause 36 of the Bye Laws of the Respondent No. 4 Society defines the powers of the Managing Committee. Clause 21 of this letter allows for substitution of members, who are eligible as per the 1991 scheme. (v) Clause 36 of the Bye Laws of the Respondent No. 4 Society defines the powers of the Managing Committee. Clause 36 (viii) empowers the Managing Committee to- "elect new members, to issue new and transfer old shares." (vi) On 26.05.2003 the Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd. was split into three societies namely, (a) the Progressive Cooperative House Building First Society Ltd. (b) the Progressive Cooperative House Building Second Society Ltd. and (c) the Progressive Cooperative House Building Third Society Ltd. There was no member figuring in the waiting list for the membership of respondent society on 26.05.2003 (vii) The society (Respondent no. 4), had 8 vacancies in November 2003, and no members in the waiting list. Hence, in the General Body Meeting, where nominees of the Registrar were present, under the directions of the Joint Registrar, Co-op Societies, a resolution was passed, authorising the Managing Committee to substitute members by inviting members from the public through a public notice. (viii) Applications for substitution were invited on 16.12.2003 by the Respondent no.4 Society from the open market on a first come first serve basis. (ix) The meeting of the Managing Committee of Respondent no.4, Society took place on 16.12.2003 in which 10 applications were received. The Managing Committee, after scrutiny, enrolled 8 members by substitution, including the appellants herein. (x) On 18.12.2003 a Schedule of Payment was released by the Respondent no.4 Society, highlighting as to what amount was to be paid by the appellants. The appellants deposited the entire amount including the construction and land cost of the flat as per the respective category of the flats of the appellant. (xi) A tripartite agreement between Sudhir Mahajan (Petitioner in SLP (C) No.13274/2020), the Respondent no.4 Society and Punjab National Bank was entered into on 27.12.2003 for sanctioning of loan to Sudhir Mahajan for purchase of his flat. (xii) A letter was also issued by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 06.01.2004 directing all Societies to withhold substitution till the policy for the same is framed by the Chandigarh Administration. (xiii) A letter was issued by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 11.02.2004 to the Respondent-4 Society, to refrain from making substitutions till the finalisation of the substitution policy. (xii) A letter was also issued by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 06.01.2004 directing all Societies to withhold substitution till the policy for the same is framed by the Chandigarh Administration. (xiii) A letter was issued by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 11.02.2004 to the Respondent-4 Society, to refrain from making substitutions till the finalisation of the substitution policy. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case the substitution was already made before the issuance of this letter. (xiv) Revision Petition No. 62/2007 was preferred by the appellants on 20.10.2005 before the Secretary, Co-operation, UT Chandigarh, against the order dated 11.02.2004. (xv) The Substitution Policy of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies states that the Societies are authorised to take their own decisions as regards the substitution. The General Body of the respective Societies can substitute members exercising their discretion, in accordance with their Bye Laws and the Cooperative Societies Act. (xvi) The Registrar, Cooperative societies vide order dated 04.08.2009 rejected the Rev. Petition No. 62/2007 stating that although Respondent 4 Society had been directed to refrain from making substitution till the finalisation of substitution policy; yet substitution of members was done in violation of the memo. (xvii) The Administrator, UT Chandigarh vide order dated 22.09.2009 rejected the Revision Petition, which was preferred by the appellant, challenging the above order of the Registrar. (xviii) On 14.07.2010 the CWP No. 17874 of 2009 was filed before the High Court by Sudhir Mahajan,(Petitioner in SLP C. No. 13274/2020), which came to be rejected vide order dated 14.07.2010. (xix) Sudhir Mahajan filed an LPA No. 1175/2010 against the order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court. This LPA came to be dismissed by the High Court, vide order dated 14.11.2011. (xx) On 13.08.2012 Sudhir Mahajan filed an SLP (C) No. 30746/2012, challenging the order dated 14.11.2011. (xxi)The LPA No. 1365/2012 was preferred by KL Gupta on 16.11.2012, and was tagged with appellant's LPA. Both LPAs were adjourned sine die, with liberty to the parties to seek hearing after the SLP (C) No. 30746/2012 was decided. (xx) On 13.08.2012 Sudhir Mahajan filed an SLP (C) No. 30746/2012, challenging the order dated 14.11.2011. (xxi)The LPA No. 1365/2012 was preferred by KL Gupta on 16.11.2012, and was tagged with appellant's LPA. Both LPAs were adjourned sine die, with liberty to the parties to seek hearing after the SLP (C) No. 30746/2012 was decided. (xxii) This Court in the SLP (C) No. 30746 of 2012, remanded the matter to the High Court with the following observations: "from the plain reading of the impugned Judgment, we find that the Division Bench while noticing the arguments advanced by the parties without giving any reason to dispose of the appeal with the directions aforesaid. In view of the fact that judgment in question lacks reasoning, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgement and remit the case back to the Division bench for decision on merit...... " (xxiii) On 06.03.2020 the High Court, vide a common order, dismissed the LPA No.1365/2012 filed by the appellant. 5. In such circumstances referred to above the appellants are here before this Court with the present appeals. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment? 7. Before we proceed further to say anything we must look into the order passed by this very Bench dated 29.01.2025 which reads thus: "1. We have heard Mr. Paramjeet Singh Patwalia, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Neeraj Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Society and Mr. Vatsal Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Registrar Cooperative Society, Chandigarh. 2. We have been able to get a fair idea as regards the controversy involved in the present litigation. This litigation is now almost more than 2 decades old. It is not in dispute that way 2 SLP(C) No. 12829/2020 back in 2003 the society had accepted the petitioners as its members and accordingly were enrolled. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners deposited the requisite amount with the Society running in lakhs of rupees including the cost of the land. 3. We are informed that the petitioners had to raise the necessary finance by obtaining loans from the bank. 4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners deposited the requisite amount with the Society running in lakhs of rupees including the cost of the land. 3. We are informed that the petitioners had to raise the necessary finance by obtaining loans from the bank. 4. It is only when the Registrar at the time of approving the substitution raised an objection that the petitioners herein cannot be said to be eligible members in accordance with the by-laws of the Society. 5. Be that as it may, almost 22 years have elapsed since the time the petitioners deposited the entire amount. Till this date they have not able to get the possession of the flats. 6. Whatever may be the argument available on merits with the respondents herein, we are of the view that this litigation should now be put to an end. 7. In such circumstances, we give one last opportunity to the Society as well as the Registrar of the Cooperative Society to work out some equitable solution to solve this problem. 8. If the respondents on their own are able to do so then it is well & good, otherwise we shall proceed to pass appropriate orders on the next date of hearing. 9. List on 12.02.2025." 8. Today when the matter was taken up for further hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respondents regretfully submitted the Court that it is not possible to work out any equitable solution to resolve the dispute between the parties. 9. In such circumstances referred to above we heard the matter on its own merits. 10. The High Court in its impugned order observed as under: "From the resume of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is very well clear that the land to the Society was allotted on 25.01.2002 with certain conditions in which condition No. 21 which we have already reproduced in the earlier part of the order, lays down the salient features in regard to substitution of members. It is provided therein that the substitution of members shall be as per the prescribed policy. Meaning thereby, the substitution could not have been done until and unless the policy was in place. It is provided therein that the substitution of members shall be as per the prescribed policy. Meaning thereby, the substitution could not have been done until and unless the policy was in place. Secondly, the said policy has the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh and thirdly, the substitution has to be made to the members who will fulfill the eligibility conditions provided under the Scheme, much less 1st proviso of Clause 6 of the Scheme." 11. We take notice of the following: (i) The appellants were substituted in terms of the bye laws of the society. Indisputably there was no policy in existence at the relevant point of time i.e. when the substitution in the instant case was done. There was no substitution policy except the administrative order dated 05.10.2001 (Annex-P2) (ii) The policy of substitution which later came to be formulated also confers upon the society the right to substitute in terms of their bye laws. (iii) It is not in dispute that the appellants herein have paid the complete sale consideration. The money was paid through loan and they had to pay interest on the same. It is very unfortunate that although 22 years have passed by yet the appellants have not been put in possession of their dwelling units. (iv) It is also not in dispute that flats are lying vacant and have not been claimed by any other party. No third party rights have been created during this integrum period. All that the society needs to do is to allot the flats to the appellants in terms of the substitution. 12. It has been brought to our notice that Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma impleaded as one of the respondents by this Court was issued a cheque bearing no. 12125 dated 20th June 2001 of the amount of Rs. 86,532/- by the Housing Board towards refund. He accepted the refund and thereafter did not pay any amount. It has also been brought to our notice that he had not applied for the substitution in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Managing Committee of the Society. In such circumstances his claim appears to be baseless. 13. In the overall view of the matter we have reached the conclusion that the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned order. The very basis for declining substitution could be termed as flimsy and baseless. 14. In such circumstances his claim appears to be baseless. 13. In the overall view of the matter we have reached the conclusion that the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned order. The very basis for declining substitution could be termed as flimsy and baseless. 14. In the result, all the four appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. 15. Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. 16. The respondents are directed to handover the possession of the dwelling units to the appellants within a period of 2 weeks from today without fail.