Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 143
High Court Of Delhi
B N.KHANNA - Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Respondent
Civil Writ 2059 of 1985
Decided On : 02/28/1991
A.K.SIKRI, L.R.GUPTA, MAHENDRA RANA, Reva Khetrapal
An award given by an arbitrator under the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, is final and binding on the parties and cannot be impliedly set aside by the exercise of the power of revision under Section 80 of the Act.
Headnote:
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY - ARBITRATION - AWARD - EXECUTION - VALIDITY - BYE-LAWS - RULES - JURISDICTION - REVISION - DELHI COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1972 - SECTION 80 - Held, the award dated 30/06/1980, was not in contravention of any of the bye-laws or the Rules and, as such, same was/is perfectly valid and legal, as well as, final one. The award could not be impliedly set aside, by exercise of the power, under Section 80 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Founder Member of the Society, raised the society, made it success and was its Secretary for four years, till December, 1960. In appreciation of the services, rendered by petitioner, the General Body and the Managing Committee of the Society, resolved to allot him a selected plot of his choice, on 22/11/1959. According to petitioner, he and his family members, also contributed extensive lands, i. e. about 15000 sq. yds. to strengthenthe case of the Society, for acquisition of further land from Delhi Administration, for developing a residential colony.
Finding of the Court:
The award dated 30/06/1980, was not in contravention of any of the bye-laws or the Rules and, as such, same was/is perfectly valid and legal, as well as, final one. The award could not be impliedly set aside, by exercise of the power, under Section 80 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the award dated 30/06/1980, was in contravention of any of the bye-laws or the Rules and, as such, same was/is perfectly valid and legal, as well as, final one.
Ratio Decidendi: The award was given by the arbitrator, under the provisions of the Act and the appeal lies against the award, under Section 76 of the Act. It is misconception to allege that the award was not final one or it was subject to the approval of the Delhi Development Authority. It is no-where stated in the award. What was subject to the approval of the concerned authorities, was not the award, but the carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. That could be done, only by submitting a revised lay-out plan to the concerned authority. Under law, the award could not be subject to the concerned authority, as, it was the final adjudication under the Act, between the parties concerned. The only remedy was by way of appeal.
Final Decision: Rule made absolute and writ petition allowed. Orders dated 15/07/1982 and 16/04/1985 quashed. Order dated 12/07/1984 upheld. Writ of mandamus issued, directing the society to implement the award, by submitting a revised layout plan, thereby, carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. for allotment to petitioner, and submit the same to the concerned authority or authorities, for its or their approval. Writ of mandamus issued, directing respondent no. 1 to take steps for execution of the award dated 30/06/1980.
( 1 ) BY the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226and 227 of the Constitution of India, Col. B. N. Khanna, petitioner herein,besides other reliefs, seeks to challenge the orders dated 16/04/1985, passedby the Lt. Governor of Delhi, respondent no. 4, in exercise of the jurisdictionunder Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, (hereinafter calledthe Act) and another order dated 15/07/1982, passed by him, and prays forquashing of the same. For better appreciation, of the various contentions,raised by the parties, and the issues, involved in this case, it will be useful, torefer to in brief, the facts and circumstances of the case, which are as under :-
( 2 ) DIPLOMATIC Enclave Extension Cooperative House Building Society,respondent no. 2 herein, hereinafter referred to as the society , was formed withthe objects to develop lands and allot the same to its members, so as to providethem the house building sites. Petitioner is a Founder Member of the Societyand his seniority is at No. 2, in the list of members. Petitioner raised thesociety, made it success and was its Secretary for four years, till December, 1960. In appreciation of the services, rendered by petitioner, the General Body andthe Managing Committee of the Society, resolved to allot him a selected plot ofhis choice, on 22/11/1959. According to petitioner, he and his familymembers, also contributed extensive lands, i. e. about 15000 sq. yds. to strengthenthe case of the Society, for acquisition of further land from Delhi Administration, for developing a residential colony.
( 3 ) THOUGH, petitioner could demand five plots of 1200 sq. yards each,as per the policy, but, he asked for one plot of 1200 sq. yds. Because of personal vendetta of some office bearers, petitioner was allotted a plot, measuringonly 800 sq. yds. When, petitioner represented, against this allotment to thethen Chief Commissioner of Delhi, and respondent No. 1, he was illegallyremoved from the membership of the Society, on the ground, that petitioner hadrefused to pay for 1200 sq. yds. and that he could not give an affidavit, asrequired by Delhi Administration, since he had owned a flat/house in Defencecolony.
( 4 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter. The then Chief Commissioner of Delhi, restored petitioner s membership, by hisorder dated 27/04/1964. The review application, filed by the Society, wasdismissed, by the Chief Commissioner. With regard to the plot in Defencecolony, it is alleged by petitioner that, he had disposed off the same in theyear 1960 itself, the same year in which, the plot was allotted to him, becausehe wanted to stay on in the society. There was no ban on the members, owingother lands in Delhi, at that time, as, the scheme of large scale acquisitiondevelopment and disposal came into operation, with effect from 2/05/1961that no individual of a Cooperative Society could hold more than one plot.
( 5 ) IN spite of the orders of the Chief Commissioner, that equal size ofplots be given, petitioner was again allotted, only a plot, measuring 800 sq. yds. instead of 1200 sq. yds. On his representation, against this allotment, thematter was referred to the arbitration, along with the case of one Shri B. M. Sharma. It appears, that the case went up to the High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, the Society persuaded petitioner, to enter into an agreement on 4/05/1968. providing, inter-alia, that plot No. A-27, measuring 1200 sq. yds. in respect of which, there was a dispute, pending in the High Court, wouldbe allotted to petitioner, as and when, it became available to the Society, otherwise, another plot No. C-32 of 500 sq. yds. , would be allotted to the nominee ofthe petitioner. In view of this agreement, petitioner withdrew all legal proceedings, then pending. This agreement is annexure P-3.
( 6 ) AGAINST the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court,given in the writ petition, filed by Mrs. Kitty Puri, relating to plot
