Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking to set aside an order dated 26-07-2024 passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as an order dated 31-01-2012 passed by the Assistant Registrar, office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies whereby the name of respondent 5 was forwarded for holding the draw of lots for allotment and further seeking a direction to respondent 1 to 4 to allot the plot in favour of petitioner on the basis of seniority and to maintain status quo in respect of plot-property. A division bench of Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ., dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of seniority for plot allotment with valid documentation.
This case revolves around a dispute regarding the membership and seniority for allotment of land in a cooperative society, specifically involving the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that his mother had been allotted membership in the society based on a receipt dated 23-11-1973. However, the society’s records, including daybooks and receipt books, showed discrepancies that cast doubt on the petitioner’s claim. Specifically, the receipt which the petitioner cited as evidence, was issued to the mother by name, but the society’s records indicated that it was actually issued to someone else. Moreover, the Crime Branch inquiry revealed that this receipt did not appear in the society’s daybook, and the date was found to be incorrect. The inquiry raised concerns about the authenticity of the petitioner’s claim, hinting at possible forgery.
Counsel for petitioner argued that the Crime Branch did not allow the petitioner to defend himself during the investigation. Additionally, they contended that the Financial Commissioner had passed the impugned order without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to present his defense. The respondent’s counsel, however, countered this argument, noting that the petitioner had multiple chances to respond before the Financial Commissioner but had failed to appear on several occasions.
Upon reviewing the case, the Financial Commissioner noted that the petitioner’s claim of seniority was based on manipulated documents, as established by the Crime Branch’s inquiry. The records did not support the petitioner’s assertions, particularly regarding the receipt numbers. The petitioner’s predecessor had also defaulted on payments, and their membership had been refunded. Furthermore, the petitioner, who had served as President/Vice President of the society for over 15 years, had ample opportunity to rectify any discrepancies, but failed to do so.
The Court remarked that It also clarifies that the seniority of the membership is not dependent either on the date of payment of money or the date of submission of the application form. In the present case, since the petitioner has been unable to establish the membership as claimed w.e.f. 30-09-1973 or 23-11-1973, being based on the documents which are declared to have been forged/fabricated, this Court finds the submission of the petitioner to be untenable in law and contrary to the facts on record.
The Court further remarked that “Even if this Court were to presume that the mother of the petitioner had got the membership transferred vide voucher no.850 dated 20-02-1974 from Smt. Vidya Bhatia as per the records, she would still be junior to respondent no.5/Smt. Joginder Kaur, who was admittedly enrolled on 4-12-1973. That apart, the authorities below have, after scrutinising the entire records before them, found as a fact that respondent no.5 figured at S.7 and the petitioner at S.16 as on 24-11-1981. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court and therefore, the seniority of respondent no.5 as found and consequent allotment of plot in her favor, stands affirmed.”
The Financial Commissioner’s order concluded that the petitioner’s claims were not supported by the society’s records, and the petition challenging the 2012 proceedings was deemed moot. The petition was dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to provide valid supporting evidence and his involvement in the mismanagement of society records.
Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove his case and had approached the court with unclean hands, especially given the discrepancies in the receipt numbers and his failure to address issues during his time managing the society. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of proper documentation and transparency in cooperative societies.
[Prit Pal Singh Bhatia v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7786, decided on 12-11-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. R.K. Gupta, Mr. Deepank Yadav, Mr. Jagjit Singh Anand and Ms. Kanak Grover
For the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil), GNCTD alongwith Mr. Vedansh Vashisht, Advocate. Mr. Mahendra Singh, Advocate for Respondent no.3/Society. Ms. Shahana Farah and Ms. Sanna Harta, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Arjun Syal and Mr. Raghuveer Kapur, Advocates for R-5.
