V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, challenge is to order dated 27.4.1999 (Annexure p.17) passed by Joint Secretary (Co-operation) (Appeals), Punjab Chandigarh) for short the Joint Secretary), exercising the powers of the State Government under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Joint Secretary, vide impugned order, not only set aside order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala (for short the Joint Registrar) but also directed that no further proceedings shall be taken in reference filed by petitioner Smt. Harvinder Kaur before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (for short the Assistant Registrar) vis-a-vis plot in question as the same being farce and an abuse of the process of Court as well as law. Joint Secretary further directed that respondent No. 5 K.K. Chadha shall be entitled to get vacant possession of the plot in question as he was entitled to the same as per draw of lots held on 9.5.1993.
(2.) ADARSH Colony Cooperative House Building Society Limited (for short the Society) came into existence in 1974 and till 1975, it enrolled 511 members. The Society had land in village Sunet and village Thrike. The land belonging to the Society was acquired by Ludhiana Improvement Trust (for short the Improvement Trust). The Society approached the Improvement Trust with a request to exempt its land from acquisition to which the latter at first agreed but later on declined the same. The Society then took the matter to the High Court in two writ petitions. In the said writ petitions, the Improvement Trust was directed by this Court to accommodate the Society by making allotment of land to it. The Improvement Trust agreed to allot 16 acres plotted area in lieu of land situated in village Sunet (now known as Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana) and land situated in village Thrike (now known as Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana). Out of the plotted area allotted to the Society, Improvement Trust carved out 281 plots of different sizes for the Society. The Society was to further distribute the plots to its Members but during the time the Improvement Trust allotted plots to the Society, the term of the Executive Committee of the Society had already expired and new Executive Committee had not been elected. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in exercise of powers under Section 26(ID) of the Act, vide order dated 22.11.1983 appointed Chaman Lal, Inspector, Cooperative Societies as Administrator of the Society. The appointment of the Administrator was for a period of 3 months or till such time, election of Executive Committee was held. The Administrator was directed to make arrangements for holding election of the Executive Committee as per Rules. The Administrator did not make any arrangements for holding election and instead enrolled 17 new members on 13.3.1984. Out of 17 new members, two namely, Ram Lal and Jaswant Singh were enrolled by way of transfer of shares i.e. shares of Jagdish Chand Rai (Membership No. 630) were transferred in the name of Ram Lal Galhotra to whom new membership No. 739 was allotted. Likewise, shares of Daljit Kaur (Membership No. 209) were transferred in the name of her husband Jaswant Singh and membership No. 734 was allotted to him. On 18.5.1984, the Administrator allotted 281 plots to the members of the Society and amongst 281 members 17 newly enrolled members were also allotted plots. Some of the members out of original 511 members including respondent No. 5, namely, K.K. Chadha made representation to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (for short the Deputy Registrar), against aforesaid allotments made by the Administrator. The Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 17.7.1984 cancelled all the allotments made by the Administrator. He found that the Administrator had not adopted any criterion for allotment and the allotment was not made in presence of the members and was also not done by draw of lots. Deputy Registrar further held that the Administrator had not obtained the approval of the Registrar for allotment of plots and allotment was made by enrolling new members whereas the old members who were members of the Society at the time of acquisition of land, had not been allotted the plots. Since election of the Managing Committee had been fixed for 8.8.1985, the Deputy Registrar directed the Administrator not to make any allotment till then. The Managing Committee which was to be elected, was directed to adopt some criterion for allotment of plots and while framing the criterion, interest of members who were members at the time of acquisition of land, be kept in view and approval be obtained from the General Body of the Society. Ram Lal Galhotra and some other newly enrolled members by the Administrator, took the matter in appeal before the Joint Registrar, who vide order dated 2.1.1985 set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. Against the order of the Joint Registrar, 4 revision petitions were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandar Division, Jalandhar (for short the Commissioner). In the revision petitions, it was pointed out that the Administrator had no authority to allot the plots. Finding merit in this contention, the Commissioner accepted the revision petitions vide order dated 9.6.1988 and orders dated 2.1.1985 passed by the Joint Registrar were set aside and orders dated 17.7.1984 passed by the Deputy Registrar were restored. With the decision of the Commissioner, enrolment of Ram Lal at Serial No. 739 and allotment of Plot No. 69-A measuring 489 Sq. Yds. situated in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar by the Administrator Shri C.L. Azad and also the allotments made by C.L. Azad to other members, came to be cancelled. It deserves to be mentioned at this stage that during the period the revision petitions were pending before the Commissioner, Ram Lal transferred his membership in favour of Smt. Harvinder Kaur (petitioner herein) and this transfer was allowed by S.S. Mann, who had then been appointed as Administrator of the Society in place of C.L. Azad and was allotted membership No. 757. The transfer of membership by Ram Lal in favour of petitioner was kept concealed and not brought to the notice of the Commissioner. Petitioner Harvinder Kaur too did not make an application for being substituted in place of Ram Lal. The Managing Committee which had since been elected, in its meeting dated 5.3.1993 laid down certain criterion for allotment of plots in pursuance of orders dated 17.7.1984 of the Deputy Registrar. It decided that allotment of plots be made to all eligible members through draw of lots in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar and Rajguru Nagar. It also decided that the members who were earlier allotted plots, whose allotments were cancelled vide order dated 17.7.1984 passed by the Deputy Registrar and as affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 9.6.1988 and had made construction and got sale deeds registered though all were illegal, an option be given to them to pay compensation @ Rs. 100/- per Sq. Yd. upto 300 Sq.Yds. plot and @ Rs. 300/- per Sq. Yd. for plots above 300 Sq. yds. Such persons were to intimate the Society within 15 days from the date of meeting of the General Body which was to be held on 4.4.1993 along with payment of compensation. The Managing Committee accordingly convened meeting of the General Body on 4.4.1993 for putting the criterion laid down by it in its meeting held on 5.3.1993 for allotment of plots before the General Body for approval. In its meeting held on 4.4.1993, the General Body approved the criterion laid down by the Managing Committee for allotment of plots. It also decided that such persons who were earlier allotted plots and had raised constructions, got sale deeds registered though illegally, shall not be sent any demand letters and no relaxation will be given thereafter except in a case where the Managing Committee feels that the same is required to be given in the facts and circumstances of the case. The General Body also decided that the matter for allotment of plots both in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar and Rajguru Nagar by draw of lots will be taken up in its meeting to be held on 9.5.1993 at Lions Bhavan, Ludhiana at 9.00 A.M. In pursuance of the decision taken on 4.4.1993 by the General Body meeting of its members was held on 9.5.1993 and draw of lots was taken out for allotment of plots to them. In the said draw, Plot No 69-A measuring 489 Sq.Yds. in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar was allotted to respondent No. 5 K.K. Chadha. This plot had earlier been allotted to Ram Lal by the Administrator whose allotment stood cancelled by an order of the Deputy Registrar as affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. Petitioner to whom Ram Lal had transferred his membership during the pendency of revision petition before the Commissioner, raised a dispute under Sections 55/56 of the Act before the Assistant Registrar regarding transfer of Plot No. 69-A in favour of respondent No. 5. She alleged that the plot should have been allotted to her as membership of Ram Lal Stood transferred in her name. She alleged that she had not received any notice of the General Body meeting held on 4.4.1993 and, therefore, could not send draft on account of compensation amount as per decision of the General Body meeting but on coming to know of the decision, she had sent draft for a sum of Rs. 86,700/- on 28.5.1983 to the Society but the said draft was returned to her by the Society stating that Plot No. 69-A cannot be allotted to her as the same had been allotted to respondent No. 5 K.K. Chadha. She further alleged that instead of Plot No. 69-A, she has been allotted Plot No. 203-A in Rajguru Nagar. The allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 was termed to be illegal and not binding upon her. Respondent No. 5 to whom the plot had been allotted but possession was not delivered, filed a petition before the Joint Registrar for a suitable direction to the Society to deliver possession of Plot No. 69- A. The Society also filed petition before the Joint Registrar restraining the Assistant Registrar from proceeding with reference under Sections 55/56 preferred by the petitioner. It was submitted by the Society that second reference is not maintainable as according to it, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner Ram Lal had lost in the earlier reference and allotment of Plot No. 69-A made in his favour was cancelled. Joint Registrar issued notices to the petitioner. On receipt of notices, petitioner filed revision petition under Section 69 of the Act before the Joint Secretary against the entertainment of petition by the Joint Registrar filed by respondent No. 5 and the Society. In his revision petition, he sought restraint order against the Joint Registrar from proceeding with the petitioners filed by the petitioner and the Society. Petitioner contended before the Joint Secretary that the Joint Registrar is not vested with any power to entertain any petition against reference of dispute pending before the Assistant Registrar. Joint Secretary vide order dated 6.9.1996 disposed of the revision petitions filed by respondent No. 5 herein and also by the Society, without expressing any view on merits and directed the Joint Registrar to decide the matter pending before him expeditiously. Pursuant to the directions of Joint Secretary, Joint Registrar vide his order dated 20.11.1997 while dismissing application' of respondent No. 5 for warrants of possession, directed the Assistant Registrar to decide the matter within 3 months. He further directed the Assistant Registrar to decide the question of admissibility of photostat copies tendered by parties after giving them opportunity to plead and rebut the authenticity and admissibility thereof.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 5 feeling aggrieved against order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Joint Registrar directing Assistant Registrar to proceed with the reference filed by the petitioner, preferred revision petition under Section 69 of the Act before the Joint Secretary. Joint Secretary accepted the revision petition. Vide detailed order dated 27.4.199, Joint Secretary came to the following conclusions. :- "(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 9.5.1997 delivered in the case of K. Shantharaj and another v. M.L. Nagaraja and others, AIR 1997 SC 2925 while interpreting provision of Section 30 and 30A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act which are analogous to the provisions of Sections 26(ID) and 27 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, held that enrolment of new member by an Administrator is beyond his power and he can organize election process in accordance with provisions of Act, Rules and Bye- Laws of the society. In the present case Sh. C.L. Azad was appointed as Administrator of the society by the ARCS, Ludhiana vide its order dt. 21.11.1983 only for the purpose of holding elections of the Managing Committee of the society. In this view of the legal as well as factual position, Sh. C.L. Azad, the then Administrator of the society had no power to enroll or substitute new members of the society much less to allot plots to them. Therefore, the contention put forward on behalf of respondent No. 4 is liable to be rejected being highly untenable to the extent that Sh. Ram Lal from whom respondent No. 4 got transferred membership of the society in her name was a validly enrolled/substituted member of the society. Therefore, since Ram Lal himself was not a valid and legal member of the society having been enrolled/substituted by the then Administrator of the society having no power to do so, how could he pass a better title in favour of respondent No. 4. Therefore, I feel no hesitation to conclude that respondent No. 4 is not a valid, legal and bona fide member of the society. (ii) The enrollment of 17 new members of the society on 13.3.84 including aforesaid Ram Lal by the then Administrator of the society either by making new enrollments or by substitution and thereafter making allotments of 281 plots on 18.5.1984 to the members enrolled by him on 13.3.1984 has already been struck down up to the court of Commissioner (Appeals). In this view of the matter, since the very membership of Ram Lal as well as allotment of plot in question in his favour has already been set aside struck down finally by the Court of Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 9.6.1988 then respondent No. 4 can neither legally claim any membership of the society nor can she lay her any claim on the plot in question. Besides the aforesaid orders, even the society vide its resolutions dated 27.11.1989 and 10.4.1992 did not recognize the enrolment/substitution of 17 new members made by Sh. C.L. Azad, the then Administrator of the society and declared them unauthorized. (iii) Through two separate orders dated 15.5.1995 Addl. Registrar (Credit), Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh while dismissing two revision petitions preferred by six members enrolled illegally on 13.3.1984 out of the aforesaid 17 members by feeling aggrieved from the allotment of plots by the society in public draw held on 9.5.1993 upheld the said public draw in which petitioner was allotted plot in question. (iv) Since the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 9.6.1988 set aside all the 281 allotments including that of the plot in question which was allegedly allotted in favour of Ram Lal then respondent No. 4 cannot possibly lay any legally enforceable clam over the said plot as her claim over the plot in question rests solely upon the alleged transfer of membership of Ram Lal in her favour. Since Ram Lal himself was not held to be legally enrolled members then respondent No. 4 being a transferee member of said Ram Lal has to swim in the same boat meaning thereby that she also ceases to be a member of the society much less having any claim over the plot in question." In light of the aforementioned conclusions, Joint Secretary not only set aside order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Joint Registrar but also directed that no further proceedings shall be taken by the Assistant Registrar in the reference filed by the petitioner vis-a-vis plot in question as the same being farce, an abuse of the process of Court as well as law. Joint Secretary felt that the matter in issue stood already decided by order dated 9.6.1988 passed by the Commissioner and, therefore, second reference in that regard is not maintainable. Hence, the present writ petition.;