A legal heir of a deceased member of a cooperative society is entitled to the plot allotted to the deceased member, and the society is liable to hand over possession of the plot or pay compensation if it fails to do so.

Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member—This complaint has been filed by Sri R.B. Pamnani, resident of Flat No. 26, Bhopal House, Lalbagh, Lucknow against Amaravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Diamond Dairy Colony, Lucknow through its Secretary and Sri Ugrasen Singh, Secretary of the said Samiti. The facts of the case as contained in the complaint are as follows :

2. The wife of the complainant, Smt. Kamla Pamnani was a member of Amaravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, the opposite party and she was allotted plot No. 4 in Yojna I, Faizabad Road in front of I.T. College, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. The area of the plot was of 3,658 sq. ft. She had deposited the required amount of Rs. 23,500/- towards the consideration money of the aforesaid plot but the opposite party did not execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant’s wife. Smt. Kamla Pamnani died on 8.10.1985. This fact was known to opposite party No. 2, Sri Ugrasen Singh, as both the deceased and he were in the same office. Thereafter the complainant requested the opposite party that the plot allotted to his wife be transferred in his name and the sale deed be executed in his favour but instead of doing this, the opposite parties sent a notice in the name of the deceased asking her to furnish an affidavit as Smt. Pamnani had already died. In reply to this notice dated 14.10.1988, which was received by the complainant on 21.10.1988, a reply was sent by the complainant on 28.10.1988 to the opposite parties in which he showed his willingness to pay the development charges and also indicated that all the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Kamla Pamnani are prepared to execute no objection certificate in favour of the complainant for transfer of the plot and execution of the sale deed. The complainant approached the opposite parties a number of times on this subject but no heed was paid. A notice was sent by the complainant through his Counsel dated 22.7.1993 asking the opposite parties as to what formalities have to be completed by the complainant to get the plot in question registered in the name of the complainant, but the opposite parties maintained completed silence. A notice was again sent on 23.9.1995 to the opposite party No. 2 asking for a reply but to no avail. The complainant has claimed that opposite parties be directed to execute the sale deed of the plot in his name or to compensate him in terms of money for the plot in question, the value of which according to the present rate was Rs. 10,70,000/-.

3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties on 9.2.1996 by registered post but they were not returned unserved and hence service of notice was deemed sufficient. The case proceeded ex parte.

4. Ex parte hearing took place on 9.9.1999.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the records of the case. It shows that the wife of the complainant Smt. Kamla Pamnani was a member of the Society, the opposite party No. 1. From the letter dated 14th October, 1988 issued by the opposite party, Amaravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, it is clear that plot No. 4 measuring an area of 3,658 sq. ft. was provisionally allotted to the wife of the complainant. In this letter the opposite party No. 1 had informed that the area had been reduced to 2,944.50 sq. ft. in view of the change of the lay out approved by the Lucknow Development Authority. In the said letter it was also required of the allottee to complete formalities in regard to the regularisation of the allotment and in case the member of the Society had died, then certain formalities under Limitation Act and U.P. Cooperative Societies Act be also done. Other formalities like furnishing of indemnity bond and the receipts etc. of the payment made were also required to be completed.

5. Under para 3 of the said letter, the provisional allottee, the wife of the complainant, was also asked that in respect of the plot provisionally allotted to her, an amount of Rs. 58,208.20 as development