Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 25.3.2011 Manvinderpal Singh son of Hari Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) This case has a very chequered history. However, the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that The Shakti Cooperative House Building Society Limited (respondent No.2) (for brevity “respondent-Society”) is governed by the provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). It had purchased the land from Jiwan Singh, Gian Singh and Teja Singh sons of Atma Singh of village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to its members. The petitioner claimed that the remaining land measuring 3000 square yards was also given to the respondent- Society on the mutual understanding that it (respondent-Society) would allot three plots to them (vendor/owners). The resolution dated 5.6.1972 was claimed to have been passed by the respondent-Society in this regard. Later on, the entire land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana for Model Town Extension Part-II Scheme. According to the petitioner, Jiwan Singh kept demanding the plot as per promise, but the respondent-Society did not allot on the pretext of non-availability of plot measuring 500 square yards. Bhajan Kaur, wife and Gurmukh Singh, son of one of the vendor/owners Jiwan Singh, became the members and the respondent- Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 2 Society was stated to have allotted two plots measuring 150 square yards each to them. 2. Dis-satisfied with the action of the respondent-Society, Bhajan Kaur wife and Gurmukh Singh son of, Jiwan Singh, filed an arbitration case under sections 55 and 56 of the Act (Annexure P1), to which, the respondent-Society filed the reply (Annexure P2). It was claimed that during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, as Harbhajan Singh, Secretary of the respondent-Society agreed to allot the additional plot measuring 100 square yards to them, therefore, the arbitration award dated 27.1.1993 (Annexure P3) was passed in this context. 3. The appeal filed by the respondent-Society, against the award (Annexure P3) was also dismissed as time barred by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by virtue of order dated 23.9.1994. The respondent-Society filed the revision petition under section 69 of the Act, which was dismissed as well, by the Joint Secretary Cooperation (Appeals) Punjab, exercising the powers of State Government, by means of order dated 23.6.1995 (Annexure P4). 4. Thereafter, Civil Writ Petition No.14878 of 1995 filed by the respondent-Society was accepted by this Court and the case was remanded back to the Joint Secretary Cooperation (Appeals) Punjab to hear the matter afresh by passing a speaking order, by way of order dated 29.7.1995. After the remand of the case, the Additional Secretary Cooperation (Appeals), exercising the powers of State Government, accepted the revision petition, set aside the order (Annexure P3) and order dated 23.9.1994 of the appellate authority, by virtue of order dated 9.5.1997 (Annexure P5), the operative part of which is as under:- “As such, the impugned order dated 27.1.93 does not stand on its legs and accordingly it is set aside. As a sequence, the impugned order dated 23.9.94 is also set aside accepting the revision petition. The matter regarding offer of 3000 sq.yd. land free of cost by respondent No.3 in favour of the society needs scrutinize of facts because the counsel for the respondent No.1,2 & 3 vehemently stated that this fact has never been denied by the counsel for the petitioner whereas the counsel Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 3 for the parties has categorically denied. Therefore, the case is remanded to Dy.Registrar, Coop.Socs. , Ludhiana to the extent of proving as to whether land measuring 3000 sq.yd. was ever given free of cost by respondent No.3 to the society and further was it mandatory on the part of society to compensate this respondent on account of this offer made in favour of the society. This contention may be proved on record after hearing both the parties and seeking the relevant record. The court below will give reasonable opportunities to the parties to lead evidence, if any, to establish this issue. Decision to be given by Dy.Registrar will be implemented in accordance with the bye-law of the society and in view of the Improvement Trust letter bearing No.12T/5243 dated 23.10.90. The parties have been directed to appear before Dy.Registrar, Ludhiana on 6.6.97.” 5. Again, after the remand of the case, the Sub-Registrar Cooperative Societies decided the matter and directed the respondent-Society to allot the plot to Jiwan Singh, vide order dated 19.3.1999 (Annexure P7). The respondent-Society felt aggrieved by this order and filed the revision petition, which was again dismissed, by means of order dated 9.5.2000 (Annexure P8). CWP No.10647 of 2000 filed by the respondent-Society was dismissed as well by this Court, vide order dated 13.3.2002 (Annexure P9). 6. Thereafter, Bhajan Kaur was stated to have transferred her share to the petitioner and he (petitioner) moved an application (Annexure P11) (without mentioning the trust amount) to the respondent-Society to transfer her (Bhajan Kaur) share in his name and the respondent-Society dismissed his application, refused to admit him as a member and transfer the share/plot No.518 in the name of petitioner. 7. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Society, the petitioner filed the appeal and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No.3) came to the conclusion that since plot No.518 was never allotted to Bhajan Kaur, the alleged vendor of the petitioner, so, she could not pass better title in his (petitioner) favour and dismissed the appeal, by way of impugned order dated 12.4.2010 (Annexure P12). Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 4 8. Still aggrieved by the order (Annexure P12), the petitioner filed the revision petition, which was dismissed as well, by the revisional authority, by means of order dated 15.10.2010 (Annexure P13). 9. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P12 & P13), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 11. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that as the petitioner has purchased the share of Bhajan Kaur, therefore, he is entitled to the allotment of plot No.518, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 12. As is evident from the record, that Jiwan Singh, Gian Singh and Teja Singh sons of Atma Singh had sold the land to the respondent-Society in the year 1970. According to the petitioner that respondent-Society agreed to allot the plots to the vendees. Jiwan Singh was stated to have transferred his share in the name of Bhajan Kaur and his son Gurmukh Singh. The petitioner is claiming his title over the plot bearing No.518 on the basis of transfer of share of Bhajan Kaur, in his favour, by virtue of transfer application (Annexure P10). He sought the allotment of plot No.518 through his application (Annexure P11). The claim of the petitioner was negatived by the appellate as well as revisional authorities, by way of impugned orders (Annexures P12 and P13). 13. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the allotment/transfer of the plot in question bearing No.518 or not ? 14. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 5 petitioner, to me, the obvious answer is in the negative and the petitioner is not entitled for allotment/transfer of plot bearing No.518 as claimed by him. 15. What is not disputed here is that plot No.544 was allotted to Bhajan Kaur, in lieu of land transferred by her husband to the respondent-Society, which she had already transferred/sold to Davinder Singh, who further transferred it to Smt.Gurminder Singh and the respondent-Society executed an agreement to sell in his favour. No cogent evidence is forth coming on record to prove that plot No.518 was ever allotted to Bhajan Kaur or the respondent-Society ever authorized Harbhajan Singh Sekhon, Secretary to make a statement before the Arbitrator, with regard to the allotment of additional plot to Jiwan Singh, in lieu of transfer of his land to the respondent-Society. In fact, the respondent-Society did not allot the plot No.518 to Bhajan Kaur at any point of time. The mere fact that the Sub Registrar has mentioned in his order dated 19.3.1999 (Annexure P7) that Jiwan Singh was entitled to additional plot measuring 200 square yards, is not a valid ground to presume that plot No.518 was allotted to Bhajan Kaur, as urged on behalf of the petitioner, because the allotment of the indicated plot was not in dispute in the order (Annexure P7). It was no where mentioned either in transfer application (Annexure P10) nor in (Annexure P11) that for how much amount, Bhajan Kaur had transferred her share in favour of the petitioner, as the relevant columns are blank in this regard. In order to succeed, the petitioner was legally required to prove that his vendor was the absolute owner of plot No.518 or had the alienable right in it, which could be transferred to him (petitioner) and that Bhajan Kaur had actually transferred her plot in his favour for a valuable consideration, by way of legal documents and as per rules under the Act or bye-laws of the respondent- Society, which are totally lacking in the instant case. Therefore, to my mind, the petitioner has no legal right to claim ownership/transfer of plot No.518 in the manner claimed by him. Thus, the contrary arguments of his learned counsel “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 6 circumstances. 16. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The appellate authority gave opportunity and the parties produced the evidence in order to substantiate their respective stands. The appellate authority having analyzed the entire evidence on record came to the definite conclusion that plot No.544 was allotted to Bhajan Kaur and she has already sold/transferred the same to Davinder Singh. Plot No.518 was never allotted to her. Once Bhajan Kaur had already sold her plot bearing No.544 to Davinder Singh, then, she no longer remained the member of the respondent-Society. Since Bhajan Kaur was not the owner of plot No.518, so, she could not sell/transfer the same to any body, including the petitioner. 17. Not only that, the matter was again re-examined by the revisional authority, which negatived the claim of the petitioner, vide impugned order (Annexure P13), which, in substance, is as under:- “On hearing the versions and arguments of both the parties and on seeking the concerned record I have reached a conclusion that the plot No.518 was never allotted to Bhajan Kaur by the Society because as per the records of the Society the said plot was allotted to Smt.Gurdev Kaur. Therefore, Smt.Bhajan Kaur was not the owner of plot No.518. On account of not being an owner she could not sell this plot further to any person. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana West is upheld.” 18. Meaning thereby, the appellate as well as revisional authorities have recorded the valid reasons and rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner in this respect. Such impugned orders (Annexures P12 and P13) containing the valid reasons cannot legally be set aside in exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 7 hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 19. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 25.3.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No