IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.
RAJESH CHINUBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
NIRMALKUNJ COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 of 2024, Special Civil Application No. 7708 of 2022, Civil Application (For Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 19-06-2024
Redevelopment - Co-operative Housing Society - Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, Sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 41A - The court upheld the legality of redevelopment actions taken by a co-operative society under the Act, emphasizing majority consent and compliance with statutory requirements for redevelopment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment allowing a co-operative housing society to evict non-consenting members for redevelopment under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973. The society had majority consent for redevelopment due to the dilapidated condition of the buildings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the society complied with the statutory requirements for redevelopment, including obtaining majority consent and following due process. The eviction was deemed a temporary arrangement for redevelopment, not a dispossession.
Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against private individuals for eviction in a redevelopment context and if the society followed the necessary legal procedures for redevelopment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that individual members of a co-operative society cannot obstruct decisions made by the majority, especially when statutory requirements for redevelopment are met.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order allowing redevelopment.
ORDER :
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the learned single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the Co-operative Housing Society, which has decided for re-development as contemplated under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1973’). While allowing the writ petition, the learned single Judge has directed the private respondents 6 to 9 to vacate their respective flats falling within the jurisdiction of the petitioner Co-operative Society and handover the peaceful and vacant possession thereof for re-development as per the aforesaid provisions within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and further to co-operate in the re-development of the petitioner No. -1 society. Out of four respondents against whom the direction has been issued by the learned single Judge, three are before us in the instant appeal.
2. Challenging this order, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that no mandamus can be issued against the private persons, as the private respondents before the writ court-the appellants herein, are not performing any public law functions. No public or statutory duty has been cast upon them and hence, the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the order impugned of summary eviction of non-consenting members of the society, cannot be approved of. It was further argued that in case of any grievance of the society, it ought to have invoked the provisions of Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 to bring the dispute before the Board of Nominees between the society and its members. In any case, the writ petition was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the appellants have serious objections about the resolution of the society in going ahead with the redevelopment, inasmuch as, the requirement of the statutory Rule 20 of the Act, 1973 to furnish the Books of Accounts and other necessary documents to the Members has not been complied with.
3. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Mani Subrat Jain and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 486, VST Industrices Ltd. vs. VST Industries Workers’ Union and Another, (2001) 1 SCC 298 and Binny Ltd. and Another vs. V. Sadasivan and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 657. It was further argued that the learned single judge has erred in relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.01.2023 in Sarojben Kiritbhai Shah Since Deceased through Heirs vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1075 of 2022 to form an opinion that the society has complied with the conditions for the redevelopment and consequentially directing for eviction/dispossession of the appellants, inasmuch as, the issue raised by the appellants about the maintainability of the writ petition, has not been decided. Placing reliance on the Apex Court decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101, it was submitted that the judgment of this court in the aforesaid LPA, is sub silencio and cannot be treated as a precedent.
4. Taking note of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we may record that the learned single Judge has noted that 18 apartments in three blocks (having six flats each) on the petitioner society’s land were constructed in an around the year 1959, i.e. more than 62 years back, and were allotted to the members of the society. The construction of the apartment being very old, structures are in a highly dilapidated state and has become dangerous to the public life. They were damaged in earthquake of 2001 and repaired by the members with the help of earthquake relief fund established by the Government of Gujarat. Because of the ruinous condition of the structure, notices have been given by the AMC under Section 264 of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation, Act, 1949 asking the petitioner society to repair the structure.
Binny Ltd. and Another vs. V. Sadasivan and Others
Mani Subrat Jain and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur
VST Industrices Ltd. vs. VST Industries Workers’ Union and Another
A co-operative society's decision for redevelopment, supported by majority consent, is binding on all members, and individual objections cannot impede the process if statutory conditions are satisfie....
Members of a cooperative society must adhere to the society's decisions and bylaws, losing individual rights in favor of collective governance.
The court upheld the validity of the redevelopment project under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, based on the majority consent of the members, dilapidated condition of the build....
The court upheld the validity of the redevelopment process under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, and directed the respondents to vacate their flats and hand over peaceful and va....
A cooperative society can proceed with redevelopment if 75% of members consent, prioritizing safety and majority decisions over individual objections.
1. Substantial compliance with statutory provisions for redevelopment of a building is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the law.
2. A writ court has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of ma....
Majority consent in cooperative societies is binding for redevelopment under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, enabling courts to enforce compliance despite minority objections.
Non-cooperative members of a co-operative society are bound by redevelopment decisions made by the majority, and courts can exercise powers under Section 9 to direct them to vacate premises for redev....
The public interest in the redevelopment scheme and the lack of infringement of the petitioners' fundamental or legal rights were the main legal points established in the judgment.
Society - Process of re-development of its building - Plaintiff has neither made out a prima-facie case nor could show as to how redevelopment, would cause loss to him nor could establish, re-develop....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.