SUPRIYA BASU AND ORS versus WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 05-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

: 
SUPRIY A BASU AND ORS 
v. 
WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. 
AUGUST 5, 2005 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983; Rules/Bye-laws framed 
thereunder : 
A 
B 
Co-operative Housing Society-Parking spaces-Allotment to Type A 
C 
or Type B Unit-holders-Challenge to-Held: The Society is neither a State 
department nor a creature of a Statute-Writ petition not maintainable 
against it-Since title itself is in dispute, a party cannot complain of 
infringement of violation of its fundamental. rights based on the title-It is 
not open to deal with such issues in a writ petition. 
The questions which arose for consideration in this Appeal were as 
to whether the covered car parking spaces could be sold by a Co-operative 
Housing Society to allottees of A and B Type Units or to B Type Units 
D 
only and as to whether the Society could discuss the questions as to 
entitlement of its members in the Annual General Body Meeting of the 
E 
Society. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Society is undisputedly not a department of the 
State and is also not. a creature of a Statute but merely governed by a 
Statute. Only if-it is established that the mandatory provision of a Statute 
has been violated, a writ petition could be maintainable. [354-B-C) 
1.2. Before a party can complain of an infringement of his 
fundamental right to hold pr~perty, he must establish that he has title to 
that property and if his title itself is in dispute and is the subject matter 
of adjudication in proceedings legally constituted, he cannot put forward 
any claim based on the title until as a result of that enquiry he is able to 
establish his title. It is only thereafter that the question whether the rights 
in or to that property have been improperly or illegally infringed could 
arise. The dispute, as noted by the High Court, essentially related tq the 
351 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
claims of two rival groups of private individuals in relation to common 
car par kin& spaces. Single Judge of the Hi&h Court gave certain directions, 
which even touched upon the leaality of the sale de4'Cls. It was not open 
to be dealt with in a writ petition. [354-C-E) 
UP. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd v. Chandra Bhan 
Dubey & Ors., AIR (1999) SC 753, relied on. 
1.3. The writ petitioners could not have questioned the decision of 
the Society to discuss the matter in the Annual General Body Meeting. 
The Society is free to convene a General Body Meeting and to discuss the 
rival claims regarding entitlement. It is clarified that no opinion is expressed 
on that aspect of the matter. [354-F-G) 
CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1766 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.2000 of the Calcutta High 
Court in M.A.T. No. 1488 of 1999 with C.O.T. No. 3005 of 1999. 
S.B. Sanyal, Dhruv Agarwal and Praveen Kumar for the Appellants. 
Raju Ramachandran, Parthapratim Chaudhary, Saurabh Suman Sinha, 
E 
Aditya Shanna and K.S. Rana and A vijit Bhattacharjee for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J; : Appellants call in question correctness of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding 
F 
that the writ petition filed by them is not maintainable. Accordingly, it set 
aside judgment of learned Single Judge who had entertained the writ petition 
and given some directions. 
G 
H 
The dispute related to the allotment of 1. 56 car parking spaces. The 
appellants who are occupying B Type flats took the stand that the car parking 
spaces were to be allotted only to them and not to A type flat owners. 
Questioning the legality of a letter purportedly issued by the Housing 
Commissioner dated 6th June, 1995 giving certain clarifications about 
entitlement of A type flat owners a writ petition was filed with a prayer that 
the letter was without any authority and even if any action has been taken 
by the respondents-West Bengal Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 
, 
SUPRIY A BASU v. WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD [PASA Y AT, J. ]353 
the 'Board') and/or Samdrita Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (in short the 
A 
':Society') in selling the parking spaces or any issue connected thereto, it was 
inoperative and invalid. Learned Single Judge accepted the plea overruling 
the contention raised by the Board/Society and A type flat owners who were 
parties in the proceeding

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