Point of Law
State Government in exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Act conferred the power upon the Housing Commissioner, U.P. by notification.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ram Raj and Sri Sunil Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Rakesh Srivastava for respondent No.3 while Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary is present for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.

2. By means of above writ petitions the petitioners have assailed the common order of U. P. Cooperative Tribunal dated 21st May, 2008 whereby while deciding the appeal against the petitioner the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the award dated 22.8.2005 passed under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the late husband of the petitioner was allotted a plot by Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.-respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) after becoming a member of the said society applied for and was allotted a plot having an area of 1200 square yards and deposited an amount of Rs.10,20,000/-at the rate of Rs.850/-per square yards by means of two demand drafts. The said amount was deposited by the petitioner on 14th June, 1999. He has further submitted that certain other amounts were deposited by him towards development charges etc. Subsequent to allotment of the said plot, a perpetual lease deed was entered into between the petitioner and Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. which was registered on 5th July, 1999; that in the meanwhile the Committee of Management of Meerut Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. was superseded and an Administrator was appointed for looking into the affairs of the said Samiti. The Administrator who was appointed on 3rd April, 2000 within one week of assuming the charges of Administrator annulled the resolutions of the Samiti dated 10th September, 1998 and 20th May, 1999 by which the plots in question were allotted to late Laxmi Chand-the husband of the petitioner and subsequently while declaring the registered perpetual lease deed executed on 5.7.1999 void also ordered that the said plot would become the property of the said Samiti and no person shall have any claim on the said plot.

4. The order dated 3rd April, 2000 was challenged by the petitioners by moving an application before the Registrar /Housing Commissioner under Section 70 of the U.P. Housing and Cooperative Societies Act. The Registrar/Housing Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh on 23rd January, 2001 passed an interim order whereby the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 3.4.2000 was stayed and the arbitration proceedings were referred to Additional Registrar/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Awas Sangh Limited, 6 Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow. Before the Arbitrator the society filed its written statement. The petitioner as well as the society were afforded full opportunity of hearing and the arbitrator was of the view that cancellation of the plots as well as cancellation of registered lease deed was not in accordance with law but during the course of hearing a fact was brought to the knowledge of the arbitrator that the plot had been allotted to the petitioner by the President of the society, who was a near relative. On coming to know of this facts an inquiry was instituted and an inquiry report was submitted to the arbitrator on 25.6.2005 wherein this fact was endorsed that the husband of petitioner No.1 was a close relative of the President of the society and, therefore, the allotment of the plot was illegal and a perusal of the operative portion of the impugned order clearly indicates that the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on this count.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 98 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act before the U.P. Cooperative Tribunal. It has been submitted that after exchange of pleadings when the matter was at the stage of final hearing, a preliminary objection was filed by one of the respondents submitting that appointment of arbitrator by the Housing Commissioner was not in accordance with law and the award suffere