- (1.) The epitome of facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that initially the house bearing No. 3323-C was allotted to one Sanjeev Bhatnagar by the Chanderlok Cooperative 'House Building Society Ltd, Chakarpur, Gurgaon (respondent No. 3) (for brevity ''respondent-society), governed by the provisions of The Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and rules framed therein (herein after referred to be as ''the Act'').
(2.) Petitioner claimed that she purchased the house from the original allottee and paid the entire consideration amount, vide demand draft dated 23.11.2004 (Annexure P2) and receipt dated 27.11.2004 (Annexure P3). The possession of the said flat was also delivered to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application dated 15.11.2004 to the respondent-society for transferring the ownership of the flat in her name, society gave no objection certificate and confirmation letter (Annexure P4), in this regard. She took a loan from the Union Bank of India, Chakarpur, Gurgaon for a sum of Rs. 7.54 lakhs which had already been, paid by her on 02.01.2006, by means of certificate (Annexure P7). The respondent-society was stated to have issued a letter dated 20.02.2006 (Annexure P8) intimating the petitioner that she has procured the above said loan from the Bank illegally, by way of forging the documents of the Society and stopped the transfer of the said flat. However, after verification, the respondent-society again issued transfer letter in the name of the petitioner on 30.42006 (Annexure P9) and also suffered an affidavit of Secretary of the Society (Annexure P10) stating therein that the petitioner has not caused any financial loss to the Society for taking loan from the Bank.
(3.) The case set up by the petitioner, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that the President, Secretary and other office bearers of the respondent-society, in order to grab the flat, tried to dispossess her and she was compelled to file a civil suit for permanent injunction. Raja Ram (respondent No. 4) and others were stated to have illegally taken the possession of the flat in the garb, and by means of order dated 01.022010 (Annexure PII), passed by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Gurgaon (respondent No. 2). The order (Annexure PII) was set aside by this Court, by virtue of order 21.07.2010 (Annexure PI2) and respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the matter afresh, by affording effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a speaking order. In pursuance of the above said order of this Court (Annexure PI2), an application for restitution of possession (Annexure PI 3), containing the true facts, was moved by the petitioner but the same was dismissed by respondent No. 2, by means of impugned order dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure P14).;