Holding

Rule 17 does not apply as the land is not Nazul land, and Section 87 does not disqualify a member in an inheritance case; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The father of respondent No.1 was a member of a cooperative housing society and died before any land allotment was made. The society transferred his membership to his son, who applied for inclusion in the draw of lots for a plot, but the Registrar of Cooperative Societies rejected the application. The Delhi High Court directed that the son be cleared for allotment, a decision the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed, contending that Rule 17 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, barred the allotment, and that Section 87 of the Delhi Co‑operative Societies Act, 2005, disqualified him. The Supreme Court held that Rule 17 applies only to Nazul land, which was not the case, and that the last proviso of Section 87 expressly excludes inheritance situations, rendering it inapplicable. Consequently, the High Court's order was found sound and the appeal was dismissed without costs. The decision affirmed that membership in a cooperative society and eligibility for land allotment are independent matters.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 17 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 applies to the allotment of the plot in question.
Whether Section 87 of the Delhi Co‑operative Societies Act, 2005 disqualifies a member who inherits property from being allotted a plot.
Whether the Delhi High Court's order directing clearance of the respondent's name is liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972s. Section 80
Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981s. Rule 17

Subjects

Nazul landcooperative housing societyinheritanceland allotmentRule 17Section 87Delhi Development Authorityeligibilityhigh courtappeal dismissed

Judgment

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY A
v.
ARUN LAL SATIJA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 23, 2007
B
__; [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,LOKESHWARSINGHPANTAAND
P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Land Laws:
c
Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul
Land) Rules, 1981; R.17:
Allotment ofLand-Son ofdeceased member ofa Society entered
into membership of the Society-Applicability ofr.17-Held: R.17 of
1981 Rules regarding general restrictions to allotment of land for D
residential purpose applies to Nazul land-Appellant-authority neither
claimed that the land in question was Nazul land nor any material
placed before the High Court to justifY applicability ofr.17-Hence,
the question ofapplying r.17 to restrict allotment ofland in favour of
son ofthe deceased does not arise-Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, E
,~
2005-Section 87.

Father ofrespondent No.1 was a member of the Society. He was
entitled to be included in the draw oflots for allotment ofland. However,
before any allotment of land was done, he died. The Managing F
Committee of the Society adopted a resolution transferring the
membership of the father to respondent No.1. Thereafter, he applied
to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for inclusion of his name in
the draw oflots by the appellant-authority, which was rejected by the
..... .,. Registrar of Cooperative Societies. A writ petition was filed by G
.-"'
respondent No.1 before the High Court challenging the non-inclusion
of his name for allotment. The High Court directed clearance of the
name of respondent No.1. Since the order of the High Court was not

527 H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A complied with, contempt proceedings were initiated against the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies-respondent No.2. The Registrar, Co-
operative Societies made a statement before the High Court that the '-
clearance letter for holding draw oflots for allotment of plot would be
issued immediately. The High Court disposed of the Petition holding
B that the membership of a society and eligibility for a plot are entirely
independent issues; that merely because respondent No.l was having
another plot in his name, he cannot be made ineligible for allotment of
a plot on that ground; and that Rule 17 of the Delhi Development
Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 is not
C applicable to the case of respondent No.1. Hence the present appeal.

Appellant-authority contended that true import of Rule 17 has been
lost sight of by the High Court.

Respondent No. I submitted that Ruic 17 has no application as the
D land in question was not Nazul land; and that Section 87 of the Delhi
Co-operative Societies Act, on which the appellant has placed reliance,
does not apply to the present case.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E HELD: 1.1. A bare reading of Ruic 17 of the Delhi Development
Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 makes it
clear that it applies only to Nazul land. Nowhere, it was the stand of
appellant that the land in question was Nazul land. Therefore, the
question of applying Rule-17 does not arise. [Para 7] [531-G]
F
1.2. The last proviso to Section 87 of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 2005 makes the position clear that it does not apply to a
case of inheritance. The undisputed position is that the property
devolved on the respondent No.I by way of inheritance. But it is not
G necessary to go into the question in the present dispute because there
was no material placed before the High Court to justify the stand that
Rule-17 had any application. [Para 9] (533-A, BJ

1.3. In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the High
H
>
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ARUN LAL 529
SATIJA [PASA YAT, J.]
Court's view docs not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interlerence. A
[Para 10) [533-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5373 of
2007.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2005 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 133/2005.

Ashwani Kumar for the Appellant.

T.S. Doabia, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Rashmi Malhotra and D.S. Mahra C
. for the Respondents.

Nagendra Rai and Amit Pawan for the Respondent No. I.

Rakesh Munjal and Vishal Sinha for the Respondent No. 3. D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to by a Division Bench of the Delhi E
High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent no. I
3. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
The land to which the present dispute relates was allotted to The
Mianwali District Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Flat No. 3- F
A, New Qutab Road, Delhi. Father of Respondent No. I was a member
of the Society. Members of the Society were entitled to be included in
the draw oflots for allotment ofland. Before any allotment ofland was
done, father ofrespondent No. I died on 22. I l. I974. Respondent No. I
filed an application for issuance of succession certificate which was allowed G
on I 7.02.1986. The Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society
adopted a resolution transferring the membership of Shri K.K. Satija in
favour of respondent No. I. Thereafter, respondent No. I approached the
office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (in short 'the Registrar')
for clearance and for forwarding his name for inclusion in the draw of H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A lots by the appellant. On 16.05.1994, the Registrar issued a show cause
notice to respondent No. I as to why his membership of the Society be
not cancelled for the reason that he was already owning a residential house
at A-120, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. On 13.10.1994, an order in this regard
was passed by the Registrar. But the membership was restored by the
B Government in a revision petition filed under Section 80 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act'). A writ petition was
filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the non-inclusion of the
respondent No.1 's name for allotment. The Delhi High Court passed an
order directing clearance of the name of respondent No. I, since no order
C was passed in terms of the High Court's order. Two and four weeks' time
were granted for inclusion of name and allotment of the plot. Since same
was not done contempt proceedings were initiated. In these proceedings,
the present appellant was not a party. In the contempt proceedings, a
statement was made by the official of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies-
D respondent No.2 that the clearance letter for holding draw of lots for
allotment of plot of 300 sq. yds. would be issued immediately.
Accordingly, the application was disposed of On 19.02.2004, respondent
No. I approached the appellant for allotment in the draw of lots. At that
point of time, the appellant came to know that order relating to inclusion
E of the name of respondent No. I had been passed. Respondent No. I filed
another writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the appellant
to allot and handover the plot. The Division Bench allowed the petition
cµid held that there was no substance in the plea raised by the appellant
and that the membership of a society and eligibility for a plot are entirely
F independent issues. It also did not find any substance in the plea that
because respondent No. I was having another plot in his name, he was
ineligible for allotment of a plot in the society. The appellant's contention
centred around Rule-17 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal
G of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (in short the 'Rules').
4. The High Court held that Rules are not applicable to the case of >- "
respondent No. I.
5. In support of the appeaL learned counsel for the appellant
H submitted that true import of Rule 17 has been lost sight of by the High
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ARUN LAL 531
SATIJA [PASAYAT, J.]
Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted A
that Rule 17 has no application as the land in question was not Nazul
land. It was also submitted that Section 87 of the Act on which the
appellant has placed reliance, does not apply to the present case.
6. The dispute revolves primarily around applicability ofRule-17. B
__,: The same reads as follows:
"17. General restriction to allotment for residential purposes.
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no plot of
Nazul land shall be allotted for residential purposes, to an individual C
other than an individual referred to in clause (i) of rule 6, who or
whose wife husband or any of his or her dependent children
whether minor or not, or any of his her dependent parents or
dependent minor brothers, or sisters, ordinarily residing with such
individual, own in full or in part, on lease hold or free hold basis, D
any residential land or house or who has been allotted on hire
purchase basis by residential land or house in the Union Tenitory
of Delhi;
Provided that where, on the date of allotment ofNazul land,
E
(a) the other land owned by or allotted to such individual is less
than 67 square metres, or
(b) the house owned by such individual is a plot of land which
measures less than 67 square metres, or
F
(c) the share of such individual in any such other land or house
measures less than 67 square metres, he may be allotted a plot of
Nazul land in accordance with the other provision of these rules."

7. A bare reading of the Rule makes it clear that it applies only to G
Nazul land. Nowhere, it was the stand of present appellant that the land
in question was Nazul land. Therefore, the question of applying Rule-17
does not arise.
8. Additionally, Section 87 of The Delhi Co-operative Societies Act,
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 2003 also has some relevance. The same reads as follows:
"87. Additional around for cessation of membership of co-
operative housing society - Subject to the provision of this Act, in
the case of a co-operative housing society, a person shall also cease
to be a member of a co-operative society -
B
(a) an disposing of the property through instrument of power of
attorney and agreement for sale subject to the interest of the
mortgage ifthere is any loan on the property; or
(b)ifhe-
c
(i) before becoming a member of a co-operative housing
society, already owns, either in his own name or in the name
of his spouse or any of his dependent children.
(ii) after becoming a member in a co-operative housing society,
D
during the currency of such membership, till allotment of any
plot or flat to him, as the case may be, acquires either in his
own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependent
children, a residential property exceeding 66. 72 sq., metres
in area, in any of the approved or unapproved colonies or
E
other localities in Delhi either on lease hold basis or free hold
basis or own power of attorney or on agreement for sale basis:
Provided that no person having residential property under this
Section in the village abadi area in Delhi shall be disqualified:
F
Provided further that no such disqualification shall be applicable
in the case of a person who has acquired property on power
of attorney or through agreement for sale and on conversation
of the property from leasehold to freehold on execution of
conveyance deed for it, if such person applies for the
G
membership of the co-operative housing society concerned:
Provided also that no member shall earn disqualification in clause
(b) above, if the residential Property devolves on his by way of
inheritance."
H
> DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ARON LAL 533
SATIJA [PASAYAT, J.]
9. The last proviso to Section 87 makes the position clear that it A
does not apply to a case of inheritance. The undisputed position is that
the property devolved on the respondent no. l by way of inheritance. But
it is not necessary to go into the question in the present dispute because
there was no material placed before the High Court to justify the stand
that Rule-17 had any application. B
10. In view of the aforesaid, the High Court's view does not suffer
from any infinnity to warrant interference. The appeal is devoid of merit
and is dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed. C