LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORLTY versus ARUN LAL SATIJA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY A v. ARUN LAL SATIJA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 23, 2007 [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,LOKESHWARSINGHPANTAAND B _ _; P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Land Laws: c Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981; R.17: Allotment of Land-Son of deceased member of a Society entered into membership of the Society-Applicability of r.17-Held: R.17 of 1981 Rules regarding general restrictions to allotment of land for D residential purpose applies to Nazul land-Appellant-authority neither claimed that the land in question was Nazul land nor any material placed before the High Court to justifY applicability of r.17-Hence, the question of applying r.17 to restrict allotment of land in favour of son of the deceased does not arise-Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, E ~ 2005-Section 87. , Father ofrespondent No.1 was a member of the Society. He was entitled to be included in the draw oflots for allotment ofland. However, before any allotment of land was done, he died. The Managing F Committee of the Society adopted a resolution transferring the membership of the father to respondent No.1. Thereafter, he applied to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for inclusion of his name in the draw oflots by the appellant-authority, which was rejected by the ... Registrar of Cooperative Societies. A writ petition was filed by G . .,. .-"' respondent No.1 before the High Court challenging the non-inclusion of his name for allotment. The High Court directed clearance of the name of respondent No.1. Since the order of the High Court was not 527 H 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A complied with, contempt proceedings were initiated against the Registrar, Cooperative Societies-respondent No.2. The Registrar, Co- operative Societies made a statement before the High Court that the '- clearance letter for holding draw oflots for allotment of plot would be issued immediately. The High Court disposed of the Petition holding B that the membership of a society and eligibility for a plot are entirely independent issues; that merely because respondent No.l was having another plot in his name, he cannot be made ineligible for allotment of a plot on that ground; and that Rule 17 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 is not C applicable to the case of respondent No.1. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-authority contended that true import of Rule 17 has been lost sight of by the High Court. Respondent No. I submitted that Ruic 17 has no application as the D land in question was not Nazul land; and that Section 87 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, on which the appellant has placed reliance, does not apply to the present case. E F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A bare reading of Ruic 17 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 makes it clear that it applies only to Nazul land. Nowhere, it was the stand of appellant that the land in question was Nazul land. Therefore, the question of applying Rule-17 does not arise. [Para 7] [531-G] 1.2. The last proviso to Section 87 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2005 makes the position clear that it does not apply to a case of inheritance. The undisputed position is that the property devolved on the respondent No.I by way of inheritance. But it is not G necessary to go into the question in the present dispute because there was no material placed before the High Court to justify the stand that Rule-17 had any application. [Para 9] (533-A, BJ 1.3. In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the High H > DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ARUN LAL 529 SATIJA [PASA Y AT, J.] Court's view docs not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interlerence. A [Para 10) [533-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5373 of 2007. B From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2005 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 133/2005. Ashwani Kumar for the Appellant. T.S. Doabia, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Rashmi Malhotra and D.S. Mahra C . for the Respondents. Nagendra Rai and Amit Pawan for the Respondent No. I. Rakesh Munjal and Vishal Sinha for the Respondent No. 3. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to by a Division Bench of the Delhi E High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent no. I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.