The guiding factor for determining the price of land in such cases is the present market value.

( 1 ) THE present petition has been brought forward underarticle 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the resolution dated28. 9. 1986 and for fixing of premium in accordance with law so as to bring the priceof the land at par with the market price and in any event at the notional price fixedby the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) and for issue of a restraintorder against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from raising construction on the plotsallotted to them by the impugned resolution. Brief facts, which are necessary for theappreciation of the points raised through the present petition are being reproducedbelow that the petitioner is a Cooperative House Building Society since the year1959. lt was allotted a piece of land for construction, development and allotment ofplots amongst the members of the petitioner Society by respondent No. 5 videagreement dated 31. 1. 1966 and a lease deed dated 29. 7. 1970. Respondent Nos. I to3 herein applied for membership of the petitioner Socirity. The Managing Committeeapproved their membership in principle subject to compliance with the prescribedprocedure. However, neither the Registrar i. e. respondent No. 4 nor respondentsnos. 1 to 3 were apprised of this fact. The said respondents neither submittedapplication in the prescribed form nor deposited the stipulated share money of Rs. 100. 00 alongwith a registration fee of Rs. 5 / -. Later on, the general body of the Societyrejected the decision of the Managing Committee and instead decided to inviteapplications from all, whosoever was interested in the membership. In pursuanceof the said decision the petitioner Society received 19 applications, including thatof the three respondents. Subsequently, the general body of the Society resolved notto admit any more members. The Society, in view of the above, remitted chequesof Rs. 10. 000. 00 each to each of the 19 applicants. Out of the 19 applicants, 17 acceptedtheir refund. However, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not encash their drafts and -cheques and pressed their claims for membership.

( 2 ) THE respondents complained to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, whoon receipt of their complaint, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the Managing Committee be not superseded. The petitioner gave a reply to theshow cause notice. Respondent No. 4 did not accept the said explanation and passedan orderdated 6. 6. 1984superseding the Managing Committee. Asa corollary of theabove supersession, an Administrator was appointed. The said Administratorpassed an order in July, 1986 admitting the above named respondents as membersof the society. He further asked for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 from Sh. J. K. Khanna,respondent No. 3. Respondent No3. deposited the said amount. The Administratorthereafter allotted plots Nos. B4, F17 and E2, Gitanjali Enclave, New Delhibelonging to the petitioner to respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3 respectively at a rate ofrs. 29. 00 per sq. yd. The Administrator while doing so, secured an affidavit fromeach of the said respondents to pay interest in addition to the premium paid bythem, as decided by the general body of the petitioner Society. The guiding factorfor determining the price of the land in such a case should be the present marketvalue which alone is the proper measure Rs. 29. 00per sq. yd. represented the marketvalue at a time when there was no development in the Society and the value of therupee was much more than now. The rate for determining the unearned increasein the value of the land in the case of transfer was Rs. 4,000. 00 to Rs. 5,000. 00 per sq. yd. It has thus been prayed that the resolution dated 28. 9. 1986 bequashed andrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 be restrained from raising construction on the plots allottedto them by the above said resolution and the lessor be directed to fix the premiumin accordance with law and justice so as to bring the price of the land at par withthe market price.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 3 hav