SH. O.P. CHOUDHRY versus REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 02-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SH. O.P. CHOUDHRY 
A 
V. 
REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE 
BUILDING SOCIETY AND ORS . 
.. 
APRIL 2, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU ANI' G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, 1954-Delhi 
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973-Rule 2 5-Allotment of plot to co-operative c 
society-Society to provide plots for tPhabilitating displaced persons-
Eligibility for allotment of plots from societ~· ascertained by the Rules, by-laws 
of society and agreement in a previous litigation-Allotments made in 
contravention of ascertained eligibility criteria-Disqualification of members-
Justification of-Held: In the facts of the r:7se disqualification justified as the 
allotments were not in conformity with the eligibility criteria-Demand of D 
' 
membership of society-Appropriateness of-Held: In the facts of the case the 
-
demand is not justified-lntcr-se seniority between members-Seniority of 
member, who had filed applicatwn for membership earlier in point of time, 
altered by High Court without notice-Justification of-Held: In the facts of 
the case altering of seniority not justified-Expulsion of member-Subsequently E 
expulsion order set aside-Seniority-Grant Of-From subsequent date-
Demand of original seniority-Held: Once the expulsion order is set aside, 
.. 
the member is entitled to original seniority. 
Some land, out of compensation pool, comprising of evacuee property 
and properties acquired by Government for rehabilitating displaced F 
persons, was allotted under Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and 
I . 
Compensation) Act, 1954 to a cooperative society. The society was 
iQcorporated, with the objed of providing plots and houses to the 
,,-
employees and ex-employees of the Ministry of Rehabilitation and its 
subordinate offices. Rule 25 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, 
bye-laws of society, and a settlement arrived at during the pendency of a G 
Special Leave Petition in an earlier litigation concerning allotment of the 
land, ascertained the eligibility or disqualification of a member to get a 
plot from the society. A member of the society who himself or herself or 
through his parents, husband/wife, chilJren etc. had obtained any house 
r 
or plot from the Department of Rehabilitation earlier, or a member, who H 
309 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A already owned a plot or house in his own name or in the name of his wife 
or dependents anywhere in Delhi, was not entitled for allotment of a plot 
in the developed land. 
In civil appeal Nos. 2634-2635 of 7.003, 2643 of 2003 and 2644 of 
2003, appellant-allotees were held disqualified for allotment of plot on the 
B ground that they were earlier allotted property from the Department of 
Rehabilitation. 
c 
In Civil appeal No. 2642 of 2003, appellant was disqualified on the 
ground that her husband was holding property in Delhi and she repeatedly 
filed false affidavit to the effect that neither she nor her husband owned 
urban plot in Delhi. 
In Civil Appeal No. 2641 of2003 appellant disputed that he was not 
given initial membership of the society despite his having deposited a sum 
with the Ministry of Rehabilitation. It was held that his having been 
D admitted as a member of the society does not arise as he had not submitted 
a formal application for enrolment as a member of the society and the 
necessary affidavit. Moreover, he himself was not pursuing the litigation. 
In Civil Appeal No. 2645 of 2003, 2646 of 2003 and 6979 of 2001, 
'S' had filed application for becoming member of the society prior to 'K'. 
E Application of 'S' was also approved prior to that of 'K'. Managing 
Committee as well as the Administrator approved the name of 'S' as 
member of the society. In writ petition filed by 'K' before High Court 
appellant 'S' was not made party. High Court had interchanged the 
seniority position of 'S' and 'K' showing 'K' at serial No. 33 and 'S' at 
serial No. 34. 
F 
The grievance of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 2647-2649 of 
2003 was that their names were not included in the draw of lots and no 
plots were allotted to them. They alleged that they had sent a letter to tl)e 
society to do the needful. Writ petitions filed by them before High Court 
G were dismissed. 
In Civil Appeal No~. 2650, 2651 and 2652 of 2003, expulsion orders 
passed against the appellant was set aside by Courts. He deposited the 
entire amount demanded by the.society. The claim of the appellant was 
that

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