Supreme Court Directs Inquiry into Plot Allotment for Society Member: Nisha Singla vs. Adarsh Colony Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 383
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a member of a cooperative society be denied possession of a plot rightfully allotted to them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a long-standing dispute over the allotment of a residential plot. The Court directed an inquiry into whether a society member was rightfully allotted a plot and, if so, to ensure that the member receives possession or an alternative remedy. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J., with the opinion authored by Hemant Gupta, J.

Case Background

The appellant, Nisha Singla, was a founding member of the Adarsh Colony Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Ludhiana. She had deposited amounts between May 12, 1975, and January 15, 1982, for the purpose of being allotted a residential plot. As of January 15, 1982, her credit balance was Rs. 11,475. The Society sought land development from the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. However, the Improvement Trust framed a scheme for land acquisition, which the Society feared would deprive them of their land. The Society then filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court had initially directed the State Government to find a way to accommodate the Society’s members. Subsequently, the Punjab Government agreed to allot plots to members who were part of the Society until 1982. In 1983, 281 plots became available. However, the administrator, Shri C.L. Azad, allotted these plots without any specific criteria. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, cancelled these allotments on July 17, 1984, citing irregularities. This order was later upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division.

A General Body meeting of the Society was held on September 27, 1992, where it was resolved to allot plots to the members. The appellant accepted the allotment of a plot of 250 sq. yards on 30.07.1993 while reserving her right to a 500 sq. yards plot. The Additional Registrar (Credit) Cooperative Society, Punjab, dismissed her claim for a larger plot, stating that she had already accepted the allotment of a 250 sq. yards plot. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, and the State Government also dismissed her subsequent appeals and revisions. The appellant then filed a writ petition, which was initially withdrawn and then dismissed on 09.12.2002. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Civil Appeal on 25.01.2011, but allowed the appellant to seek a review. The review petition was also dismissed on 16.05.2011.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the following legal provisions:

• Section 26(1-D) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961: This section pertains to the appointment of an administrator for a cooperative society. The provision was used to appoint Shri C.L. Azad as the Administrator of the Society.
• Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961: These sections deal with the resolution of disputes within cooperative societies. The appellant raised disputes under these sections regarding the allotment of plots.
• Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961: This section provides for appeals against the orders of the Additional Registrar. The appellant filed an appeal under this section.
• Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961: This section provides for the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government. The appellant invoked this jurisdiction.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice. The Supreme Court invoked this article to direct an inquiry into the matter.

These provisions are part of the regulatory framework governing cooperative societies in Punjab, ensuring proper functioning and dispute resolution. The Supreme Court’s invocation of Article 142 highlights its power to ensure justice, even if it means going beyond the strict letter of the law.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that she was a founder member of the Society and had deposited money for a residential plot.
• She contended that despite being allotted a plot of 250 sq. yards, she had not been given possession of it.
• The appellant claimed that she had been pursuing this matter for four decades without a resolution.
• Even if she was not entitled to a 500 sq. yards plot, her entitlement to the 250 sq. yards plot was undisputed.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The Society acknowledged that the appellant was allotted a plot of 250 sq. yards by the administrator, Shri C.L. Azad.
• The Society stated that the General House of the Society finalized the criteria for allotment of plots on 04.04.1993.
• The Society contended that the appellant had deposited Rs. 25,000 for the 250 sq. yards plot.
• The Society also alleged that the plot re-allotted to the appellant had been illegally allotted to Shri Ashish Gupta, the son of the then Honorary Secretary of the Society.
• The Society highlighted that there were more than 40 other cases of illegal plot allotments.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s persistence in seeking justice for a long-standing grievance, despite numerous setbacks in lower courts and tribunals. The respondent’s acknowledgment of the allotment, coupled with the allegation of illegal re-allotment, added a layer of complexity and highlighted the need for a thorough inquiry.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant was allotted a plot by Shri C. L. Azad, the Administrator.
2. Whether a fresh allotment was made to the appellant by the Society after the initial allotments were set aside on 17.07.1984.

Additionally, the Court considered the sub-issue of whether the appellant had been given possession of the allotted plot, despite not explicitly raising this grievance.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in the judgment. The Court primarily relied on the facts presented and the legal provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and the Constitution of India.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Section 26(1-D) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 to understand the circumstances under which the Administrator was appointed.
• The Court referred to Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 to understand the nature of the dispute raised by the appellant.
• The Court took note of Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 to understand the appellate process followed by the appellant.
• The Court considered Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 to understand the revisional jurisdiction invoked by the appellant.
• The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice by directing an inquiry into the allotment and possession of the plot.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring justice for the appellant, who had been a member of the Society since 1975 and had not received possession of her allotted plot. The Court focused on the following points:

• The appellant’s long-standing membership and deposit of funds.
• The undisputed allotment of a 250 sq. yards plot.
• The fact that the appellant had not received possession of the plot.
• The allegations of illegal re-allotment of the plot to another individual.
• The need to address the genuine grievance of the appellant.

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the appellant’s long wait for justice. The legal aspects, while important, were secondary to the need for equitable resolution.

The Court found that the appellant had been deprived of her rightful allotment due to procedural irregularities and illegal actions within the Society. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not prevent the delivery of justice.

The Court stated: “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.”

The Court also noted: “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.”

Further, the Court observed: “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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court directed an inquiry into the allotment of a plot to a member of a cooperative society.
• The Court emphasized that a member cannot be deprived of their rightful allotment due to technicalities.
• The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Punjab, was directed to conduct the inquiry and ensure the appellant receives possession or an alternative remedy.
• This case highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the functioning of cooperative societies.
• The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring complete justice, even if it means going beyond the specific grievances raised by the parties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Punjab, to conduct an inquiry to ascertain:

1. Whether the appellant was allotted a plot by Shri C. L. Azad, the Administrator.
2. Whether a fresh allotment was made to the appellant by the Society after the initial allotments were set aside.

If such allotment is found to be made, the appellant would be entitled to possession of the plot of 250 sq. yards. If the plot is not available, the Registrar or its delegate shall pass necessary orders to redress the grievance of the appellant by allotting a suitable plot within four months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a member of a cooperative society cannot be deprived of their rightful allotment of a plot due to technicalities or procedural irregularities. The Supreme Court’s direction for an inquiry and subsequent action ensures that the appellant’s genuine grievance is addressed. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the principle of equitable justice and the Court’s power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Nisha Singla vs. Adarsh Colony Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. directs an inquiry into the allotment of a plot to a long-standing member of a cooperative society. The Court’s intervention highlights its commitment to ensuring justice and preventing technicalities from undermining the rights of individuals. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Punjab, has been tasked with conducting the inquiry and ensuring that the appellant receives either possession of her allotted plot or an alternative remedy.