SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. GYAN BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Appeal No. 1433 of 2002 (The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Gyan Bhushan and Anr.), Appeal No. 1434 of 2002 {The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Devinder Sahani and Am.), Appeal No. 1435 of 2002 (The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Cooperative House Biulding Society Ltd. v. Surinder Kaur Walia and Anr.), Appeal No. 1436 of 2002 (The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Joginder Kaur and Anr.), Appeal No. 1437 of 2002 (The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Mrs. Sudarshan Marwaha and Anr.) and Appeal No. 1438 of 2002 (The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Amarjit Singh and Anr.) as the questions of law and facts involved in all the appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Appeal No. 1433 of 2002 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.

(2.) THE Shaheed Bhagat Singh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., appellant, (in short "the Society") was constituted with the sole motive to purchase land and carve out plots therefrom for making plots in favour of its members, Gyan Bhushan, respondent No. 1 was one of its Members. The Society had purchased 16800 sq. yards of area comprised in Khasra Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Village Dugri in the year 1968 for allotment of one plot each to its Members. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2 (in short "LIT") acquired the said land in the year 1974 but the Society got it released. Afte adjusting 45% of the area for roads and for other basic amenities like parking etc. 58 plots of 150 sq. yards each were carved out and were allotted to each of the Members of the Society including Gyan Bhushan, respondent No. 1. However, land of 33 plots did not exist on the spot against which the Society filed the complaint against the LIT in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum") for the grant of alternative area. The said complaint was accepted by the learned District Forum vide judgment dated 7/15.2.1996. The LIT had filed an appeal in this Commission but it was dismissed. The LIT filed revision petition in the Hon'ble National Commission which was dismissed. They filed Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. Thereafter the Society filed the execution application which was pending in the learned District Forum in the year 2002.

(3.) IT was further pleaded that the President of the Society who was at the helm of the Society and was competent to allot the proposed plot retorted to the shock of respondent No. 1 and other Members that he intended to allot the plots to the people of his own choice at the exclusion of respondent No. 1 and the other members. He also threatened to tamper with the record of the Society and exclude the name of respondent No.l from the list of members of the Society. Therefore, respondent No. 1 apprehended that justice would not be done to him on which he filed the complaint in the learned District Forum. The Society filed written reply. Besides pleading preliminary objections the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the complaint was filed only on the alleged retort made by the President of the Society. He did not have any authority to exclude the name of respondent No.l from the membership of the Society. Moreover, the remedy was available to respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It was admitted that the Society was duly registered and it was not denied that respondent No. 1 was its member. Rather it was pleaded that respondent No. 1 was a defaulter of the Society and had not paid the dues of the Society. It was denied if the land was purchased with the efforts of respondent No. 1. It was denied that respondent No. 1 contributed as per his mite for the purchase of the land in the name of the Society. He did not contribute towards the money spent on litigation expenses by the Society. These expenses were madeby receiving deposits from other members of the Society. It was admitted that the plots were allotted by the LIT but the land of 33 plots was not available on which the Society had filed a complaint in the learned District Forum which was decided in favour of the Society and the said judgment was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.