The 1976 bye laws governed the case, allowing dual plot allotments within the same family, and the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment was unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Mathur, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Seth learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shridhar Awasthi learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Mr. Rakesh Srivastava learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 23rd July, 2010 passed in an arbitration case No. 128-E of 2008 upholding cancellation of plot of petitioner. Also under challenge is the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2015 whereby appeal No.161 of 2015 preferred by petitioner has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner submitted an application dated 5th November, 1985 for being admitted as a member of the opposite party No.3 Sri Saraswati Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Kanpur, which was allowed and in pursuance thereof, registered lease deed in perpetuity was executed in favour of petitioner vide deed dated 24th March, 1986 allotting plot No. 45 situate in Daheli, Sujanpur, Kanpur whereupon petitioner constructed a residence in the year 1993 and is being duly assessed for house tax. It is submitted that petitioner is residing alongwith her younger daughter on the said plot.

4. It is further submitted that without any prior notice to petitioner and in an ex parte manner, the aforesaid lease has thereafter been cancelled by the society vide resolution dated 26th October, 2008 on twin grounds that petitioner's husband, Mr. Haridwar had earlier been allotted plot No. 44 in the same society vide deed dated 10th October, 1984 and therefore in terms of bye laws applicable upon the society, two members of the same family could not have been allotted plots in the society simultaneously. Second ground for cancellation was that petitioner failed to make any permanent residential construction over the plot in question within a period of three years from the date of allotment as stipulated in the bye laws of the society.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the time of allotment of plot in favour of petitioner, it was the model bye law of 1976 which was applicable and as per bye law 5 thereof, no such prohibition was indicated prohibiting two persons of the same family from being allotted a plot simultaneously.

6. It is also submitted that the petitioner even otherwise has made permanent construction over the plot in question within the stipulated period of three years; a fact which has been noticed in the impugned order as well and therefore there was no occasion to uphold cancellation of plot of petitioner on that ground.

7. It has been further submitted that the allotment having been made in the year 1986, even otherwise could not have been cancelled after a period of more than 22 years and was therefore barred by limitation.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that at the time of allotment in favour of petitioner vide lease deed dated 24th March, 1986, it was in fact the model bye laws of 1979 which were prevalent in the society and not bye laws of 1976. It is submitted that since petitioner's husband had already been allotted and transferred plot No.44 in the same society, petitioner was ineligible to become a member of the society and for allotment of plot in terms of bye law 5 of the bye laws of 1979.

9. It is also s