IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.10.2010 COCP No.623 of 2010 G.S.Azad and others ...Petitioners Versus V.K.Bansal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajeev Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. J.S.Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Petitioners are the members of Guru Teg Bahadur Cooperative House Building Society. Such society was allotted a piece of land for construction of flats by the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Society Limited (for short ‘the Housefed’). The said plot of land measuring 5.49 acres was allotted by the Punjab Government to the Housefed. The Housefed in turn allotted the said piece of land to the society for construction of residential flats. The Society made part payment of the piece of land to the Housefed. The allotment of land in favour of the Society was found to be in violation of the conditions of allotment by the State Government and consequently, allotment of the society was cancelled by Housefed. An Advisory Committee was constituted for the implementation of the project, called Mohali Project. The Society has entered into an agreement with the contractor for construction of flats prior to cancellation of allotment. Certain amount was paid by the Society to the contractor as well. Therefore, a tripartite agreement was arrived at between COCP No.623 of 2010 the Housefed, Society and the Contractor on 24.07.1989. As per the said agreement, the amount already paid by the Society to the Housefed will be counted towards share of the society for the cost of construction and the remaining amount was to be collected from the members of the Society as per the detailed terms mentioned in tripartite agreement. Out of 168 flats to be constructed, 148 flats were allotted to the members of the Society, but 20 flats were kept by Housefed for allotment as per its discretion. 5 flats were allotted in exercise of discretionary quota by Housefed. There was a dispute regarding exercise of discretionary quota. The Administrator of the Housefed set aside the discretionary quota. The order of Administrator was affirmed by this Court in a writ petition on 31.05.2006. The letters patent appeal was dismissed on 10.03.2009 and the SLP on 31.07.2009. The petitioners claim to be allottees of remaining 15 flats, which were once reserved by the Housefed to be allotted in its discretionary quota. The possession thereof has not been given to the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have not deposited the amount claimed by the Housefed. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.10.2010, it was pointed out that the Society through its members has to pay certain amount to the Housefed on account of cost of such flats. Since there was no document to show that such flats were constructed with the funds provided by the Housefed, the Managing Director of the Housefed was called to appear in person. Today Mr. Tejinder Singh, Managing Director, Housefed, is present in Court. He has produced a copy of the tripartite agreement dated 24.07.1989 and explained the facts as enumerated above. From the facts, it 2 COCP No.623 of 2010 is apparent that the construction of the flats has been undertaken by the Housefed. Such flats are to be allotted by Housefed as its owner. The effect of the order passed by this Court, setting aside the discretionary quota, is that the flats are to be allotted by the Housefed, but not as per its discretion. Since the members have been allotted flats, such allottees have to make payment of the dues payable to the Housefed in accordance with law. Therefore, it cannot be said that any direction of this Court has not been complied with by the Housefed, when the Housefed raises a claim for money before giving possession of the flats to the petitioners. In view of the above, I do not find that any case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. 07.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3