Interpretation of Rule 25 of the Delhi Co-operative Rules, 1973 and entitlement to the allotment of a flat based on previous judgments.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J. :- With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for hearing. The issue involved in the present writ petition is disqualification of the petitioner for allotment of a flat in respondent No. 6 Society by virtue of operation of Rule 25 of the Delhi Co-operative Rules, 1973, which reads as follows :

"Rule 25. Disqualification of Membership (I) No person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a co-operative society if he .......

(a) ...........

(b) ...........

(c) In the case of membership of a housing society :-

(i) He owns a residential house or a plot of land for the house in any of the approved or un-approved colonies or other localities in the Union Territory of Delhi in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependent children on leasehold or freehold basis provided :

that disqualification as laid down in sub-rule (1)(c)(l) shall not be applicable in case of persons who are only co-sharers of joint ancestral properties in congested localities (Slum Area) whose share is less than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) of land."

2. The petitioner has been found to be disqualified by the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 22nd September, 1994. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a consolidated order passed by the Financial commissioner in three Revision Petitions bearing Nos. 139/94-C.A., 140/94-C.A. and 141/94-C.A. Apart from the petitioner, the entitlement of Mr. Baijnath Singh and Mr. Shiv K. Sharma were also rejected by the Financial Commissioner, and this led to a writ petition filed in this Court being Writ Petition (C) No. 4854/94, titled as Ram Nath Sharma v. Lt. Governor, and the judgment in that case was reported in 2000 (56) DRJ 612 : (AIR 2000 Del 447). The issue involved in the present writ petition was decided by the learned single Judge of this Court in the following terms :

"I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Against the judgment rendered in Navjivan's case no appeal was filed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies against the interpretation of Rule 25. I rely on the said judgment. It has to be borne in mind that when the Co-operative Societies Act was enacted, the legislative intention on account of pressure on land in Delhi was to allot land to the co-operative societies, so that they could give individual plots to the members of that society. Now instead of plots, the co-operative housing societies are being allotted land by the superior lesser for onward allotment to its members of flats. The whole idea was that those persons who do not have any residential accommodation in Delhi should be benefited by this legislation. It was a social welfare legislation to give shelter to the residents of Delhi. Clause (5) in the bye-laws of the Society whereby if a person or his/her spouse owns a dwelling house or plot for building a house in Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment could not have become a member of the Society has manifested the same aspirations. Rule 25 of the Co-operative Societies Rule is also to be same effect. It was enacted in order to prevent persons who had some residential accommodation in Delhi so that those who do not have any residential accommodation could be given some plots or flats. It could not have been the legislative intention to debar who are having small holdings like the petitioner. Petitioner from his ancestral house has got a share of 38 sq. yds. in Lal Dora, i.e., a village abadi. Rule or bye-laws cannot be interpreted so as to prohibit such class of petition from acquiring membership of the society for allotment of a plot. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that because it is not a notified slum area although the fact that the residential house of the petitioner is in Lal Dora is not denied, is too far fetched an argument. One has to go to the reasons for br