$~193 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25^thFebruary, 2026 Uploaded on: 27^th February, 2026 + W.P.(C) 2651/2026 & CM APPL. 12899/2026, CM APPL.

12900/2026 SANJIV GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Raghuvanshi (AOR), Mr. Avinash Tripathi, Mr. Akshat Rawat, Advs.

versus THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is yet another case which shows the harrowing experience that members of co-operative societies have to face and undergo for obtaining allotment of flats in their favour and for conversion of properties from lease- hold to free-hold. In each of such matters there are three main parties who cause significant delay running into decades in allotting the flats and permitting conversion. The said parties are:

A. Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’);

B. The concerned Co-operative Group Housing Society; and C. Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’).

3. The members of co-operative societies are made to run pillar to post between these three entities for years before they can get the title to their flats finalised with the authorities. The same is also evident from the facts of this case.

4. The brief facts of the present case are that on 13^th October, 1991, the Petitioner-Shri Sanjiv Gupta and Smt. Usha Gupta i.e., Aunt of the Petitioner, became members of the Respondent No.2- Mitra Dweep Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘Society’)

5. Smt. Usha Gupta resigned fromthe membership of the Society on 11th December, 1996 and the Petitioner was approved as the sole member of the Societyon21stDecember,1996.Themembershipfee,sharemoney,etc.were deposited by the Petitioner way back in 1997 itself and a share certificate was also issued to the Petitioner. The draw of lots was then held on 28^th August, 1998 for allotment of 54 flats. Out of the 54 flats, 53 flats were allotted and one flat of the Petitioner i.e., flat no. C-5 was kept unallotted due to some litigation by one Mrs. Ranjeet Kaur, who had been expelled from the membership of the Society.

6. Representations were made by the Petitioner for allotment of the flat to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a writ petition being CWP No. 2929 of 1999 titled ‘Sanjiv Gupta v. Regr. Coop. Socy. & Ors.’. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 13^th May, 1999 it was directed by this Court that one four-bedroom flat shall be kept reserved for the Petitioner. The said order reads as under:

“CW 2929/99.

Issue Notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted returnable on 12th July, 1999.

Mr. Vikas Pakhiddey, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1 counter Affidavit in opposition to the writ petition be filed within two weeks.

Rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

CM 6370/99 Issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 12^th July, 1999.

Mr. Vikas Pakhiddey, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Reply be filed within two weeks rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

One 4 bed room category Flat be reserved for the petitioner if available, till the next date of hearing.”

7. The litigation of Mrs. Ranjeet Kaur thereafter got decided and she was held disqualified from membership of the Society. The possession of flat no.

C-5 was then given to the Petitioner on 12^th December 2001.

8. In CWP No. 2929 of 1999, the final order of disposal was passed on

15^th July, 2002. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“Be that as it may, when the matter came up for considerationtoday,L/Cforpetitioner Mr.Munjial asserted that no case of expulsion having bearing orpetitioner's claimwaspendingbeforeanyforum and, therefore, there was no hitch in clearing his name. He submitted that pendency of some expulsion case wasthe onlygroundtakenby R-1in the impugned order for detaining petiti