SUMANGALAM CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

>< 
SUMAN GALAM CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
A 
-
v. 
SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
JANUARY 3, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961; ss. 17, 20, 23, 24 and 30: 
Allegations of irregularities and illegalities against Ahmedabad Urban 
Development Authority in allotting lands to a Society-On Suo Motu 
cognizance, High Court holding that illegalities and irregularities c 
committed by Authority in allotment of land in question, to the Society at 
!ower price and found its officers guilty-On appeal, Held: No complaint 
against appellant-Society filed by other societies for committing fraud-
Valuation done by the valuers demolishes the basis of conclusion by High 
Court that land in question sold at under-valued price-Hence observations 
D 
made against various officials uncalled for and treated as deleted-
Appeals allowed 
The question which arose for consideration in these appeals relates 
to irregularities and illegalities committed in the allotment of land to 
appellant-Society by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. 
E 
The stand of the appellant-Society is that they have purchased the land 
in question from the Authority at a price which is in no way less than the 
market price. Therefore, mode by which the High Court has made the 
valuation and arrived at its findings has practically no basis. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The credentials of the valuer are quiet impressive. He is 
an approved valuer for more than five decades and is an author of several 
G 
books on valuation. [Para 8] [7-B-C] 
Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Another v. District 
y 
Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) and Others, [2005) S SCC 632, 
relied on. 
H 
A 
B 
,2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 1 S.C.R. 
1.2. No member of respondents 2, 3 societies has made any complaint 
against appellant-Society. That has significant impact on the controversy. 
The valuation done by the approved Vttluer demolishes the basis of the 
conclusion by the High Court regarding undervaluation. The observations 
made against various officials are uncalled for and have to be treated as 
deleted. [Paras 9-10) (12-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3986 of 2004. 
•, 
}< -
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.4.2002 of the High Court 
,, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in S.C.A. No. 10640 of2000. 
Altaf Ahmad (A.C.), Harish N. Salve, R.P. Bhatt, Romy Chacko, Anil 
K. Mishra, Vikarant Yadav, Sashidhar, San jay R. Hegde, Bhargava V. Desai, 
Rahul Gupta,T;muja Sheel,Mahima C. Shroff; ChiragM. Shroff, Janak Shah, 
Rajiv Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Jayashree Wad, Neer<'j Kumar, Ashish Wad, 
Chirag Dave (for M/,s~ J.S. Wad & Co.), Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera, 
Maninder Singh, Pratibha M. Singh and Gaurav Sharma for the appearing 
, parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court which suo 
motu registered a writ petition on the basis of the copies of documents 
purported to have been received from one Piyush Soni. It was alleged that 
there were several irregularities . and illegalities in connection with the 
allotment of land to Sumangalam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The 
High Court entertained several other civil applications and passed the 
impugned judgment inter alia holding that there were several irregularities 
and illegalities committed in the allotment ofland. The judgment of the High 
Court in SCA No. 10640 of 2000 is the subject matter of challenge in these 
appeals. Shri Altaf Ahmad; learned Senior counsel was appointed as Amicus 
Curiae. 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is 
relevant to. note that since valuation of the property allotted was one of the 
major grounds which weighed with the High Court while dealing with the 
H 
matter, therefore, on the suggestion of counsel for the parties, Dr. Roshan 
y 
) 
-"' 
/. 
SUMANGALAM CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. SUO MOTU. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.) 3 
H. Namavati, an approved valuer was asked to determine the market value 
of the properties in question as on the date of allotment i.e. on 1.3.1990. It 
appears that High Court found that one Mr. H.K. Khan has disposed of a 
plot for Rs.22,00,000. According to the High Court same was the market 
price at which the plot 
in question could have been tra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.