LT. COL. SURINDER KUMAR DUTT AND ORS. versus SHAKTI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 03-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

LT. COL. SURINDER KUMAR DUTT AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SHAKTI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING LTD. AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1993 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, 0, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY 
B 
AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972: 
Sections 3, 40 and 55. 
c 
Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973-Rule 24. 
Cooperative House Building Society_-Dispute among members-
Registrar-Forbidding holding of elections-High Court in Letters Patenr 
Appeal appointing Retired High Court Judge as Administrator-Ad-
D 
-;... 
ministrator preparing list of members-Report of Administrator assailed on 
ground that 'simplified procedure' indicated by Registrar not followed -
Supreme Court upholding Report of Administrator. 
l 
The Cooperative House Building Society - Respondent No.1 in the 
appeal was formed with a vieW to provide house-sites to its members. A E 
site was acquired but before the plots could be distributed among the 
members, disputes arose among them. Various groups in the society tried 
to gain control of the society's affairs and a number of suits were tiled and 
several interim orders obtained. 
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies found that on account of the 
infighting among members the very object of the government in providing 
land on concessional rate to the society stood in jeopardy; fed up with the 
unending disputes he passed an order forbidding holding of elections lo 
the Committee of the Society. 
The aforesaid order or the Registrar was challenged in a writ 
petition. The Single Judge who heard the matter, made several attempts 
to resolve the differences between the parties but found no room for any 
settlement. He heard the Writ Petition and dismissed the same. 
F 
G 
A letters Patent Appeal was tiled, the Division Bench also undertook H 
427 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A to settle the disputes. It succeeded partially, with the consent of the parties, 
the Division Bench appointed a former Judge of the High Court as the 
Administrator, to finalise the list of membership. He thoroughly examined 
all claims and prepared a list of 219 members, which was approved by the 
Court by order dated 19.8.85 and the Administrator was directed to 
B proceed with the allotment of plots. 
Before the aforesaid directions could be complied with certain mem· 
bers made an application for review of the order dated 19.5.1986. A 
direction was sought that the Administrator prepare a fresh list following 
the 'simplified procedure' notified by the Registrar of Cooperative 
C Societies through his letter dated 5.7.1977. The Division Bench accepted 
the Review Petition, and directed the Administrator by its order dated 
17.5.1989 to prepare a fresh list. The Administrator prepared a list con-
taining 221 members, and submitted bis Report. This created a ticklish 
situation inasmuch as the total number of plots available was 210 whereas 
D the number of members eligible was 221. Disputes again started as to the 
manner in which the plots should be distributed. 
The four appellants who are members of the Society, questioned the 
correctness of the Division Bench order dated 17th May, 1989 in their 
appeal to this Court contending that their names were found far above 
E serial No. 210 in the list approved by the Court by its order dated 19th 
May, 1986, whereas their names came down to 216 to 219 in the list 
prepared by the Administrator on the basis of the 'simplified procedure', 
and that for that reason they may not be entitled to allotment of plots. 
F 
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. The verification of membership has been done by the 
Administrator, a very responsible person, a former Judge oftbe Delhi High 
Court. One exercise by such a person is sufficient, two exercises are more 
than enough. It cannot be an external process. It bas to stop at some stage, 
G and it should stop now. Jf any person who has some claim to membership 
of the society has either not chosen to come forward and put forward bis 
claim before the Administrator in response to the notices issued by him 
or bas chosen not to question the rejection of bis claim by the Ad· 
ministrator before the Delhi High Court or bas failed to put forward bis 
claim at least in these proceedings, It must be presumed that be bas no 
H legitimate claim to the membership of the society. [433B-CJ 
) 
J
LT. COL. SURINDER ''- SHAKTI CO-OP HOUSE BLDG. 
429 
2. When the society was initially formed the land allotted to it was A 
not of much value.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.