Holding

A flat allotted under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act is a heritable and transferable immovable property, and in the absence of a nominee the interest vests in the legal heirs, obligating the Society to transfer it to them; the Special Officer’s re‑allotment order was illegal and the writ petition is maintainable.

Summary

The appellant, a daughter of a deceased member of Mousumi Co-operative Housing Society, sought transfer of a flat allotted to her father after his death intestate. The Society, under a Special Officer appointed by the High Court, declared the flat re‑allotted because the heirs had not claimed the interest within the statutory period. The High Court initially granted relief, but a Division Bench dismissed the petition, holding that no right vested without full payment and that the heirs' claim was time‑barred. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act a flat is a heritable and transferable immovable property, and that the Society must transfer the interest to the legal heirs, with the Special Officer’s order being illegal and arbitrary. The Court also affirmed that the Special Officer is a statutory authority, making the writ petition maintainable under Article 226, and issued a mandamus directing the Society to transfer the flat to the appellant upon payment of the balance.

Issues considered

The ownership of a flat in a co‑operative housing society is inheritable and transferable under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.
In the absence of a nominee, whether the interest of a deceased member passes to all legal heirs or can be vested in a single heir with the consent of others.
Whether the writ petition challenging the Special Officer’s order is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the Society’s re‑allotment of the flat without hearing the heirs is lawful.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

co-operative housing societyinheritance of sharespecial officerArticle 226 writheritable propertymandamustransfer of interest

Judgment

A GAYATRIDE
v.
MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

APRIL 16, 2004

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 :

c Ss.80(J)(b) and (c) and 87(3)-Co-operative Housing Society-Death
of a member-Transfer of interest of deceased member in absence of any
nominee-Held, a plot of land, a house or an apartment in a multi-storied
building shall constitute a heritable and transferable immovable property
provided it is not partitioned or sub-divided-It is an obligation of the Society
D to transfer the share or interest of deceased member within the stipulated
period-While disposing of deceased member's share or interest, preferential
claim always goes to his heirs and legal representatives in absence of any
nominee-On facts, appellant being one of tl:e heirs of the deceased member
is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased .

E Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 226-Co-operative Housing Society-Special Officer of Society
appointed by High Court-Cancelling allotment of deceased member-Writ
petition by heir challenging cancellation-Held, Special Officer is a statutory
functionary-Society being under control of Special Officer, writ petition is
F maintainable in law.

Respondent Society purchased some land from appellant's father the
vendor, to construct a multi storied building thereon. The vendor was
admitted as a member and was allotted a Oat in the Society. After making
part payment towards the cost of the flat, the vendor died without
G nominating any person to inherit the flat. Meanwhile in a litigation
involving the Society, the High Court appointed a Special Officer to
monitor progress of the Society. The son of the vendor, the deceased
allottee, wrote a letter to the Special Officer about the death of his father
and steps being taken to transfer his interest to one of his heirs, but the
H 356
GA YATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 357
Society did not reply. About two years later, the Special Officer informed A
him that since claim for transfer was not made within the stipulated period,
the flat had already been reallotted.

The appellant, one of the daughters of the deceased allottee, filed a
writ petition in the High Court for a direction to the respondents to
withdraw or cancel the letter issued by the Special Officer • The Single B
Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to take steps
to transfer the flat in favour of the petitioner. However, in appeal the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that
the entire amount having not been paid, no right, title or interest had
passed in favour of the deceased allottee; that under the provisions of the C
Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, the writ petitioner or the heirs of
the deceased allottee had no right to allotment of flat; that the heirs
nominated after expiry of the stipulated period could not derive any right;
and that no writ petition would lie against the respondent Society.
Aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the present appeal.
D,
On the questions: whether the right of the ownership of a flat in the
multi-storied building under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies
Act,1983 is inheritable and transferable; whether, in the event of death
of the member leaving no more nominee any person to inherit the interest
of the deceased member, his interest should be inherited by all the legal
heirs or can it be inherited by any one of the legal heirs if 6ther legal heirs E
have given their rights in favour of such single legal heir; and whether
the writ petition against the Society was maintainable,

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Sub-section (3) of Section 87 of the West Bengal Co- F
operative Societies Act,1983 makes it abundantly clear that a plot of land
or a house or an apartment in a multi-storied building shall constitute a
heritable and transferable immovable property within the meaning of any
law for the time being in force provided that notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force such heritable and G
transferable immovable property shall not be partitioned or sub-divided
for any purpose whatsoever. In terms of the Act and the Rules, the heirs
of a deceased person are, therefore, entitled to inherit the flat allotted to
the deceased. In the instant case, admittedly, the flat in question was
allotted to the father of the appellant who died thereafter and as a
consequence thereof, the heirs of the said deceased became and would be H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A entitled to the estate and as a result thereof to the said flat with
proportionate interest in the land. (370-F-H; 371-AI

2.1. In view of Section 80(l)(c )of the Act, transfer of shares or
interest can be made only by a Society and not by the legal heirs because
if it is read 'by a Co-operative Society' after the word "transfer" then the
B meaning and application becomes clear which means that it is an obligation
of the Society to transfer the share or interest of the deceased member
within the stipulated period referred to in Section 80 of the Act. The
provision clearly indicates that while disposing of deceased member's share
or interest the preferential claim always goes to the heirs and legal
C representatives of the deceased member in absence of any nominee.
(371-C-Fl

2.2. In the instant case, the question of admission of membership,
becomes absolutely immaterial; and the real question is of transfer of
devolution of interest of a deceased member. The appellant being one of
D the heirs of the deceased member was and still is entitled to succeed to
the estate of the deceased member as per the mandatory provisions of the
statutes and that being so the right, title and interest of the deceased
member in the apartment of the Society devolves upon his heirs; and in
that background, Section 85(3) and Rule 135(5) neither have nor can have
any application in the instant ca~e because there cannot be any manner
E of doubt that on the death of a member of a Society his share or interest
in the Society shall, in the absence of a nominee, be transferred, in view
of s.80, to a person who appears to the Board to be entitled to in
accordance with Rules, possession of such interest as part of the estate of
the deceased member. In the instant case the son, who himself is admittedly
F not a member of the Society in question or any other Housing Society and
became entitled to be considered for such allotment, immediately gave
notice to the appropriate authority about the death of his father and also
intimated the Society that steps were being taken under the Act to get their
father's interest transferred to one of them - brothers or sisters.
(371-H; 372-A-C(
G
2.3. The order passed by the Special Officer, who is a statutory
functionary, re-allotting the flat .to a stranger, even after· he had received
letter regarding transfer of ownership in favour of legal heirs, without
giving any opportunity of being heard and without deciding the question
as to who was entitled to the said flat in accordance with law, was not
H only improper but also illegal, arbitrary and motivated. However, it has
GA YATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 359
been brought to the notice of the Court that the flat has not been allotted A
to a third party and remains vacant (372-D-E; G)

3. In the instant case, the subject matter of the writ petition is the
order passed by the Special Officer in discharge of his statutory functions
and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable in law. The Special Officer
is appointed under the provisions of the Act and as such he is a statutory B
Officer and, therefore, he should be regarded as a public authority. Apart
from that, Art.226 of the Constitution is not confined to issue of writ only
to a public authority, the bar extends also to issue directions to any person.
In a case where the Co-operative Society is under the control of a Special
Officer, a writ would lie. (374-E-F) C
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors.,
[2002) 5 SCC 111; Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak and Anr.,
[2001) 3 SCC 323; U.P. State Co-operative land Development Bank ltd. v.
Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors.,(1999) 1 SCC 741 and S.R. Tewari v. Dist.
Board, Agra, AIR (1964) SC 1680, relied on. D·
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills ltd Sultanpur, U.P. v.
Satrughan Nishad and Ors., [2003) 8 SCC 639 and G.Bassi Reddy v.
International Crops. Research Institute and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 225, referred
to.
E
Kannan P. Tamilarasan, Hand Ors. v. The Director of Sugars, Office
of the Director of Sugars etc.,(1991) 2 Law Weekly Madras 409 and Ajay
Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722, cited.

4. The prayer made in this appeal by the appellant deserves to have F
consideration and, therefore is accepted. A mandamus is issued directing
the respondents and, in particular, the Secretary of the respondent-Society,
to take immediate steps for transfer of the flat in question in favour of
the appellant and also hand over the flat to her upon payment of the
required amount. [377-B-C)
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3523 of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.97 of the Calcutta High
· Court in F.M.A. No. 285 of 1996.

V.R. Reddy, Tapas Ray, S.B. Sanyal, Mainak Ghosh, Raja Chatterjee, H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Sachin Das, G.S. Chatterjee, Satish Vig, N.R. Choudhury and Somnath
Mukherjee for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. This appeal involves several interesting
B questions as will appear from the facts set out hereunder:

The appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Calcutta praying, inter a/ia, for cancellation of the letter dated 1.11.1988,
issued by the Special Officer of the Society, for declaration that the possession
of the Flat being No. A- 2 on 5th Floor should be given to the legal heirs of
c late Sati Prasanna Bhowmick, the deceased member, upon receipt of all dues
in respect of the said apartment by the said Society and for an interim order
of injunction restraining the society and the Special Officer from alienating
transfer of the said apartment No. 2 to anybody other than the legal heirs of
the deceased member and for other reliefs.
D
The father of the appellant/writ petitioner - Sati Prasanna Bhowmick -
has died intestate in August, 1985 leaving being him the following legal
heirs:

(a) Smt. Gayatri De Married daughter
E
(b) Smt. Atri Das -do-
(c) Smt. Maitry Roy -do-
(d) Smt. Anita Sarkar -do-
(d) Sri Subrata Bhowmick son
F
(e) Smt.Mita Das Married daughter

The .said legal heirs, namely, the four daughters and the son have
separately, by letters, given their consent thereby authorising the appellant to
take possession of the flat being No. A-2/5 from the respondent-Society. The
G appellant has been authorised by all the legal heirs of late Sati Prasanna
Bhowmick to take possession of the flat stands in the name of their deceased
father.

The appellant's father, owner of rent free land at 15 B Ballygunge,
Calcutta-700 019, entered into an agreement on 18.10.1977 for sale of the
H land in question on which the said Society desired to make the apartment. On
GAYATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANANJJ 361

27.10.1980, an indenture was entered into between the father of the appellant A
and the Housing Society. The total price was Rs. 13,90,069.28 against which
the earnest money amounting to Rs. 7,30,000 was paid towards part payment
of the price. Clauses 10 and 12 of the agreement of 1977 runs as follows:

"l 0. The purchaser shall construct a multi-storied building on the plot
of land to be purchased by them as aforesaid. The vendors shall have B
the right to purchase at least 8 flats in the said building either in the
name of themselves or in the name of their nominee or nominees
each flat to contain a floor area of about 1268 sq. ft. The purchase
price to be paid by the vendors in respect of the said flats be at the
same rate as those payable by other purchasers of similar flats in the C
same building occupying the same position. The purchaser shall not
sell any of the said 8 flats unless the same are first offered to the
vendors by 60 days previous notice in writing by registered post. In
case· the vendors do not signify their willingness to purchase within ,
the said period of 60 days the purchaser will be entitled to dispose of
the flats to any other person or persons." D
"12. Subject to the approval of the general meeting of the purchaser
the name of the building to be constructed by the purchaser shall be
"Priti Court" and the said name shall not be changed by the purchaser
without the previous written consent of the vendors."
E
It is worth mentioning, in this connection, that Priti was the name of the
pre-deceased wife of the said Sati Prasanna Bhowmick and the late mother
of the appellant herein. By letter dated 29. l l .1982, the Society intimated the
father of the appellant that they had favourably considered the application
and accepted the membership under the terms and conditions contained in the ,F
said letter. The father of the appellant had been informed by the said letter
that the Society had allotted him a three bed rooms flat on facing flat No.A-
2 having covered area of 1268 sq.ft. approximately (including common area)
on 5th floor in the project of the society. The estimated cost of the flat was
mentioned at Rs. 2,53,600 @ Rs. 200 per sq.ft. inclusive of proportionate
land value. 0
Clause 13 of the said letter runs as follows:

"13. Your right and interest in the society will be-governed by the
provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Socieities Act, West
Bengal Co-operative Socities Rules and the bye-laws of the Society. H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A You will also be liable to discharge your obligation as a member of
the Society in accordance with the above mentioned Act, Rules and
bye-laws. You are at liberty to inspect the bye-laws of the society."

On 13.10.1980, the So~iety issued two share certificates bearing Nos.
51 and 52 in favour of Sati Prasanna Bhowmick, since deceased and a flat
B being No.A-2 on the 5th floor at the said multi storied building had been
allotted to him under their letter dated 29 .11.1982. The Secretary of the
society made demands of payments for the flat in question and the other flats
allotted.to other members. Series of correspondences went on and the father
of the appellant took time to clear all the dues. Some trouble arose which
C hampered the progress of the said society and other litigations were cropped
up. One Mr. Arun Prakash Sarkar, an advocate of the High Court at Calcutta,
had been appointed as a Special Officer. The Special Officer intimated this
under his signature that the High Court had authorised him to take immediate
steps to have the construction work continued and also to give liberty to him
to consider the question of allotment of applications etc. The father of the
D appellant, since deceased, who was an aged ailing octogenarian became ill
and ·could not take any further steps regarding his own flat namely, A-2/5
which had been allotted to him as already mentioned hereinabove. It is worth
mentioning, in this connection, that since after the early part of 1983, there
was neither any demand for money nor of any communication regarding his
E liability in respect of the said flat from the end of the said Society during the
life time of Sati Prasanna Bhowmick.

By letter dated 6.12.1986, Dr. Subrata Bhowmick, son of Sati Prasanna
Bhowmick, since deceased, the erstwhile allotee in respect of flat No. A-2/
5 wrote a letter to the Special Officer of the Society intimating him abou: the
F demise of his father and mentioning therein that they had since found that
their father did not leave any nominee for the flat mentioned above. It was
also mentioned therein that they were taking such action under the West
Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
and the laws to get their father's interest transferred to one out of all brothers
G and sisters and as some of them were outside Calcutta and even outside India
and it was likely to take time. No reply was sent by the Society to the letter
dated 18.12.1986. The Special Officer, for the first time, on l.l l.1988 wrote
a letter to Dr. Subrata Bhowmick that in accordance with the Act, the Rules
made thereunder and the bye-laws of the Society, a claim for transfer of
interest is required to be made within a stipulated time and as no claim for
H transfer of the interest of their late father has been made in time, the flat in
GAYATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 363

question has already been re-allotted and the Society will make payment of A
the amounts made after· deduction in accordance with law.

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta for a
mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to withdraw, cancel and not ti:>
give effect to the purported letter dated 1.4.1988 issued by the Special Officer
of the Society and to forbear from acting on the basis thereof and pursua~t B
thereto. Other consequential reliefs/prayers were also made.

The writ petition was resisted by the Special Officer of the Society
submitting therein that the said writ petition was not maintainable in law and
sustainable on facts and should be rejected in limine. The appellant filed an C
affidavit in reply denying and disputing the correctness of the statements,
contentions and submissions made in the affidavit-in-opposition. It was
specifically stated that the Special Officer having been appointed by the High
Court and the decision and action of the Special Officer could not be assailed
in any Court subordinate to the High Court and as such the High Court was
moved against the wrongful and illegal action of the Special Officer. In spite D
of availing the remedy of reference of the dispute to the Registrar under the
Act, which according to the appellant, was no bar to the maintainability of
the writ application, it was asserted that the appellant was ready and willing
to pay the balanced amount in respect of the said flat and also prepared to
comply with all the formalities in respect of the said flat. The writ application E
was heard and disposed ofon 2.7.1992 by a learned single Judge. The ordering
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the
petitioner should succeed in this writ application. There will be an
order quashing and cancelling the said letter dated 1.11.1988 issued F
by the Special Officer, Mousumi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.·
respondent No.3. There will be a further direction to take appropriate
steps in accordance with law for transfer of the flat in question in
favour of the writ petitioner and also to hand over possession of the
same to her upon payment of balance amount due and payable after
adjusting the said sum of Rs. l ,00.000 paid by her father, Sati Prasanna G
Bhowmick.

The application is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order
as to costs."

Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the Society preferred an H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal
filed by the Society and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. It
reads thus:

"(a) Since the entire amount has not been paid, no right, title and
interest had passed in favour of the father of the appellant Sati Prasanna
B Bhowmick ; (b) The provisions of the Act and the Rules made
thereunder leave no manner of doubt that the appellant does not have
any right to allotment of a flat nor the heirs of the deceased could
claim title in relation to the flat in question in violation of the provisions
of Chapter IX of the said Act; (c) The heirs nominated after the
c expiry of the stipulated period could not derive any right contrary to
or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition was
not maintainable for non-impleading the necessary party and no writ
will lie against the respondent-Society."

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment -of the Division
D Bench, the appellant filed this appeal by way of speci~I leave petition.

We heard Shri V.R. Reddy and Shri Tapas Ray, learned senior_ counsel,
appearing for the appellant and Shri S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel
assisted by Shri Somnath Mukherjee, learned counsel, appearing for the
respondents.
E
Shri V .R. Reddy took us through the pleadings, affidavits filed before
the High Court as well as before this Court and the annexures. He made the
following submissions:

He submitted that in the event of death of a member, the legal heirs of
F such deceased member are entitled to- inherit and give allotment of the flat
which the deceased member was entitled to. In the instant case, the deceased
member died leaving no more nominating any person to inherit the flat.
According to Shri V.R. Reddy, in the event of the deceased member dies
leaving no more nominating any person to inherit the flat, the interest of the
G deceased member could be inherited by all the legal heirs or by one of the
legal heirs in the event other legal heirs give their rights in favour of such
single legal heir. He submitted that the Cooperative Society is not competent
to re-allot a valid allotment in favour of the deceased member even when all
financial obligations are complied with, ignoring the rights of legal heirs of
H such deceased member. He invited our attention to Sections 79, 80, 82, 85,
87 and the corresponding Rules.
GAYATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 365

Mr. V.R. Reddy further submitted that the writ petition was maintainable A
since the order impugned was passed by the Special Officer, appointed under
the provisions of the Act and as such he is a statutory officer and, therefore,
he should be regarded as a public authority and, therefore, the writ petition
filed. by the appellant is maintainable in law.

Mr. V.R. Reddy also submitted that the right and interest of th~ legal B
heirs of the deceased member could not be denied in the event of time taken
in nominating, particulars legal heirs for the same could not be done within
three months from the date of the death of the member because of certain
unavoidable circumstances as the legal heirs were not available immediately
in giving their consent and giving up their rights in favour of the single legal C
heir in whose favour the property desired by all the legal heirs to be transferred.
More so, when the Cooperative Society was intimated well in advance seeking
extension of time in providing particular name in whose favour the property,
the legal heirs desired to be transferred. Shri V.R. Reddy contended that the
valid membership in favour of deceased member could not be cancelled only
because the name of the nominee in whose favour of the property was to be D
transferred had taken some time for selecting such nominee by all the legal
heirs.

Countering the arguments, Shri S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents, submitted as under :
E
(a) The judgment and order impugned in this appeal is unexceptionable;

(b) The father of the appellant paid only Rs. one lakh against the title
cost of the flat of Rs.2.60 lakhs despite several reminders during his life time
and as such, acquired no right, title or interest in his allotted flat No. A-215
under Section 87 of the Act and under Rule 153 of the Rules framed F
thereunder;

(c) The present appellant cannot claim any such title or interest over
the same by way of inheritance. The modality for such devolution by
inheritances are stipulated under Section 80(l)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The
appellant having failed to comply with such formalities of the claim, automatic G
entitlement to the right, title and interest in the flat was no longer available
to the appellant.

As per the directions of this Court dated 13.4.1998, the nomination
register along with the zerox copy thereof was submitted. The said register H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A is a statutory register under Section 79 of the Act and Rule i 27 of the Rules
and is conclusive evidence that late Sati Prasanna Bhowmick did not appoint
any nominee in respect of his flat.
l
(d) The writ petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable as the
re~pondent-Society is not a State or even the instrumentality of the State
B within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of Iildia. According to
Shri S.B. Sanyal, the Society is an autonomous body, duly governed by .an
elected Board under the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws of the Society
and the Society is not recipient of any State assistance in the form of shares,
subsidy loans, working capital etc. and there there is no State control or State
c nominee or Government Officers on deputation to the service of the ~ociety.
Therefore, he would submit that since the Society is governed by the Act,
Rules and bye-laws devoid of any elements of public law warranting remedy
in the form of mandamus, the writ petition is not maintainable.

(e) The appellant forfeited her right to the shares and interest of late
,1:
D Sati Prasanna Bhowmick because of her negligence to prefer the claim with
probate, letter of administration or succession certificate before the Board
within the period of 90 days as stipulated in Section 90(l)(b) and (c) of the
Act. The appellant has also discharged her onus for preferring he claim
within the stipulated period. It was submitted that sub-Section (3) of Section
85 of the Act being a special statute would govern the relationship of the
E parties and thus the question of his heirs and successors being automatically
entitled thereto does not arise and the membership which was heritable could
be claimed in the manner laid down under the Act and Rules framed
thereunder.

F (t) T_he appellant being allottee of Flat No. A-2/4 in the same building
is not entitled to a second flat being No. A-2/5 under Section 85(3) of the Act
and Rule 135 (2) of the Rules.

(g) The third party allottee was not made a party to the writ petition.

(h) Concluding his arguments, Shri S.B. Sanyal submitted that the t
G
appellant is a stranger so far as Flat No. A-2/5 is concerned. She is neither
the nominee of late Sati Prasanna Bhowmick nor the one claiming right, title
and interest of late Sati Prasanna Bhowmick-under Section 80 (l)(b) and (c)
of the Act within 90 days of his demise to the satisfaction of the Board and
thus forfeited her right to succession to the subject flat under Section 72 and
H Section 87(2) of the Act and Rule 153 of the Rules.
GAY ATRI Dh.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 367

(i) Mr. S.B. Sanyal further submitted that even though the appellant is A
not entitled to any right, shares and interest of late Sati Prasanna Bhowmick,
the respondent-Society is ready and willing to refund the amount to the
appellant.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced
by the learned senior counsel appearing on either side with reference to the B
pleadings, records, annexures and the case laws.

Before we proceed to deal with the issues in question, it is beneficial
to consider the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

Section 2(8) of the Act defines a Co-operative Housing Society to C
mean Co-operative Society, the object of which is to provide its member with
dwelling house, apartment or lands for construction of dwelling houses of
apartments, and maintenance of common services in connection therewith
and includes a federation of such societies.

Sections 2(28), defines a member in the following terms: D

"Member means a person joining in an application for registration
of a co-operative society which is subsequently registered or a person
admitted to the membership of a co-operative society after its
registration under this Act, and includes a joint member.
E
"Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, joint member shall
any one of the person (including husband and wife and father and son
or unmarried daughter) jointly admitted to the membership of a Co-
operative society."

Section 2(32) of the Act defines "prescribed" which reads thus: F
"Prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act."

The word relative has not been defined but in terms of section 2(38) of
the Act it has. the same meaning as in the Companies Act.
G
Section 79 provides for a nomination of transferee which is in the
following terms :-

"Subject to the bye-laws of a Co-operative Society, any member
of such Co-operative Society may in accordance with the rules
nominate a person in whose favour the Co-operative Society shall H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A dispose of he share of interest of such member on his death."

Clauses (b) and (c) of section 80 read thus:

"80(b) If there is no nominee or if the existence or residence of
the nominee cannot be ascertained by the Board or if, for any other
B cause, the transfer cannot be made without unreasonable delay, to the
person who (subject to the production by such person or probate,
letter of administration or a succession certificate) appears to the
Board to be entitled in accordance with the Rules to the possession
of such share or interest as part of the estate of the deceased member;
or
c (c) on the application of the person referred to in clause (b)
within three months from the date of death of the member, to such
person, as may be specified in the application."

Section 82(b) provides:
D "When the membership of a member of a Co-operative Society referred
to in clause (a) terminates by reason of death, expulsion, resignation
of insanity or any other cause, his possession of, or interest in any
land held by him under the Co-operative Society shall vest in his heir
executor or administrator or in the person, if any, nominated by him
E under section 79, if such heir executor administrator or person is
Willing to be admitted as a member of the Co-operative Society and
is eligible for membership under section 69."

Chapter IX provides for special provision for Co-operative Housing
Society. Sub-section (3) of Section 85 reads thus:
F
"A person shall not be a promoter or admitted as a member of a
Co-operative Housing Society until he has made a declaration and
sworn before an Executive Magistrate to the effect that he is not a
member of any other Co-operative Housing Society in West Bengal
and that he or any member of his family does not own any house or
G apartment or plot of land in the city, town or village where the Co-
operative Housing Society is located."

Sub-Section(2) of Section 87 provides that a member of a Co-operative
Housing Society shall not be entitled to any title or interest in any plot of
land or house or apartment in a multi-storied building untill he has made such
H payment as may be prescribed towards the cost of such plot of land or
GAYATRJ DEv.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 369

construction of such house or apartment or both, as the case may be, to the A
Co-operative Housing Society.

Sub-Section (3) of Section 87 reads thus:

"A plot of land or a House or an apartment in a multi-storied
building (including the undivided interest in the common areas and B
facilities) shall constitute a heritable and transferable immovable
property within the meaning of any law for the time being in force:
·:
Provtded that notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, such heritable and transferable
immovable property shall not be partitioned or sub-divided for any C
purpose whatsoever."

Rule 128 deals with the disposal of the member's share or interest and
procedure for calculation of value of shares which reads thus :-

"(l) When upon the death of member of a Co-operative Society, the D
question of transferring the share, or paying interest of such deceased
member arises, and the Board of such Society finds that the deceased
member did not make any nomination i1,1 accordance with the
provisions of Section 79, or that the existence or residential address
of the person nominated cannot be ascertained, or that for any other
sufficient cause such transfer of payment cannot be made without E
unreasonable delay, the Board may transfer the share or pay interest
of such deceased member in favour of or to any person who presents
in writing his or her claim for the said share or interest and produces,
in support of such claims, probate, letter of administration or succession
certificate issued by a competent Court having jurisdiction, and makes F
a written declaration in an affidavit before the Magistrate that he or
she is the rightful claimant, being the legal heir or representative of
the deceased.

(2)(a) Where a Co-operative Society has to make a refund of the
value of a share, the value of the share shall be deemed to be equal G
to the amount paid upon the share:

Provided that where a portion of the asset is estimated to be bad
or doubtful in the latest audited balance sheet, and is not covered by
funds created out of profits, the Board may, for the purpose of such
payment, reduce the value of the share, in the same proportions as the H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP, I S.C.R.

A aggregate amount of assets which are not bad or doubtful, less the
amount of outside liabilities, bears to the paid up share capital.

(b) Where a transfer of share or interest is made, the value of the
share or interest shall be deemed to be the sum actually paid by the
member for the acquisition of such share or interest."
B
Rule 153 provides that a member ofa Co-operative Housing Society
shall not be entitled to any title or interest in any land, house or apartment
unless he has made full payment towards the cost of such land, house or
apartment as may be finally apportioned by the Society.

C Sub-Rule(2) of Rule 185 reads thus :-

"Jn a Co-operative Housing Society, the number of members shall
not exceed the total number of plots,. houses or apartments proposed
by a Society to be allotted to members under any Scheme or project
of such Society:
D
Provided that a member shall be eligible for the allotment of one
plot house or apartment in a Co-operative Housing Society."

We shall now deal with the question as to whether the right of ownership
of a flat in multi-storied building under the Act is inheritable and transferable.
E The other question as to whether in the event of the deceased member dies
leaving no more nominee any person to inherit the interest of the deceased
member for such apartment should be inherited by all the legal heirs or by
one of the legal heirs in the event other legal heirs give their rights in favour
of such single legal heir may also arise.

F Section 87 of the Act deals member's right of ownership and sub-
Section(3) of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that a plot of land
or a house or an apartment in a multi-storied building shall constitute a
heritable and transferable immovable property within the meaning of any law
for the time being in force provided that notwithstanding anything contained
G in any other law for the time being in force such heritable and transferable
immovable property shall not be partitioned or sub-divided for any purpose
whatsoever.

In terms of the Act and the Rules, the heirs of a deceased person are,
therefore, entitled to inherit the flat allotted to the deceased as in the instant
H case. Admittedly, the flat in question was allotted to the father of the appellant
GAYATRIDE 1'.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J] 311

who died thereafter and as a consequence thereof, the heirs of the said deceased A
became and would be entitled to the estate and as a result thereof to the said
flat with proportionate i~terest in the land.

Section 80 of the Act deals with disposal of the deceased member's
share or interest and clause (b) of sub-Section (I) of the said Section speaks
that if there is no nominee or if the existence or residence of the nominee B
cannot be ascertained by the Board or if, for any other cause the transfer
cannot be made without unreasonable delay to the person who appears to the
Board to be entitled in accordance with the Rules, possession of such shares
or interest as part of the estate of the deceased members; or sub-Section (c)
on the application of the person referred to in clause(~) within three months C
from the date of death of member to such person as may be specified in the
application which clearly indicates that while disposing of deceased member's
share or interest the preferential claim always goes to the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased member in absence of any nominee.

Section 82(b) of the Act is very specific that notwithstanding anything D
contained elsewhere in this Act or any other law for the time being in force
when the membership of a member by a cooperative society referred to in
clause (a) terminates by reason of death or any other cause his possession of,
or interest in, in land held by him under Cooperative Society shall vest in his
heirs or in the person, if any, nominated by him under Section 79, if such heir
is willing to be admitted as a member of the Society. E
Section 80(c) of the Act makes it clear that on the death of the member
of the Society, his share or interest in the Society shall be transferred on the
application of the person referred to in clause (b) within three months from
the date of the death of the member of such person as may be specified in
the application. Therefore, transfer of shares or interest can be made only by
F.
a Society and not by the legal heirs because if it is read by a Cooperative
Society after the word "transfer" then the meaning and application becomes
clear which means it is an obligation of the Society to transfer the share or
interest of the deceased member within the stipulated period referred to in
Section 80 of the Act G
While disposing of the appeal, the learned Judges of the Division Bench
of the High Court gave much stress on sub-Section (3) of Section 85 of the
Act as also Rule 135 of the Rules taking the present case to be a case for
admission of membership which is not in the instant case. In the present case,
the question of admission of membership becomes absolutely immaterial, the H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A real question, however, is of transfer of devolution of interest of a deceased
member. The appellant being one of the heirs of the deceased member was
and still is entitled to succeed to the' estate of the deceased member as per the
mandatory provisions of the statutes and that being so the right, title and
interest of the deceased member in the apartment of the Society devolves
B upon his heirs and in that background, Section 85(3) and Rule 135(5) neither
have nor can have any application in the instant case because there cannot be
any manner of doubt that on the death of a member of a Society his share
or interest in the Society shall, in the absence of a nominee, be transferred
to a person who appears to the Board to be entitled to in accordance with
Rules, possession of such interest as part of the estate of the deceased member
C and herein in the instant case the son who himself is admittedly not a member
of the Society in question or any other Housing Society became entitled to
be considered for such allotment immediately he gave notice to the appropriate
authority, which too, long before the alleged re-allotment was said to have
been made.

D In our opinion, the order passed by the Special Officer re-alloting the
flat to a stranger even after he had received letter regarding transfer of
ownership in favour of legal heirs in December, 1986; long before such
alleged re-allotment, claimed to have been made in April, 1988, that is, more
than 16 months from the receipt thereof when giving any opportunity of
E being heard and without deciding the question as to who was entitled to the
said flat in accordance with law. The said action of the Special Officer who
is a statutory functionary was not only improper but also illegal, arbitrary and
motivated.

In fact, the respondent-Society has informed that the allotment in favour
p of the deceased allottee stood cancelled because of no appropriate person
could be named as legal heir of the allottee in whose favour respondent-
Society was to make the allotment and as such the Society has been threatening
of re-alloting the earmarked flat for the deceased allottee to a stranger ignoring
the rights of the legal heirs.

G It is now brought to our notice that the flat has not been allotted to a
third party and remains vacant. The allotment letter of membership of the flat
to the father of the appellant (Annexure P-4) dated 29.11.1982 clearly stipulates
that the right and the interest in the Society of the member will be governed
by the provisions of the Act, the Rules made thereunder and the bye-laws of
H the Society and that the members will also be liable to be discharged his
GAYATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 373

obligations as the member of the Society in accordance with the above A
mentioned Act, Rules and the bye-laws.

It was then argued by Shri S.B. Sanyal that the appellant being allottee
of Flat No. A-2/4 in the same building is not entitled to a second flat being
No. A-2/5 under Section 85(3) of the Act and Rule 135 of the Rules. This
argument cannot be countenanced. A letter dated 6.12.1986 written by Dr. B
Subrata Bhowmick (son of the deceased) to the Special Officer reads thus:

"Ref: Flat No. A-2/5th Floor

I am the son oflate Mr. S.P. Bhowmick who held share certificate
Nos. 51 and 52 and to whom the flat mentioned above was allotted C
by your Co-operative Housing Society. He expired in August, 1985

We have since found out that he did not leave any nominee for
the flat. We are, therefore, taking such action under the West Bengal
Co-operative Societies Act, and laws to get out father's interest
transferred to one of us-brother or sisters. As some of them are outside D·
Calcutta and outside India, it is likely to take time to observe all legal
pro~esses before submission of the case of the interest transference to
the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society. Please bear
with us for the delay.

Thanb. E
Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

F
(S. Bhowmick)"
The letter is self explanatory.

Dr. Subrata Bhowmick, son of late Sati Prasanna Bhowmick brought to
the notice of the Society about the death of his father in August, 1985 and
also by intimating the Society that, they are taking such action under the Act G
and laws to get their father's interest transferred to one of them-brothers or
sisters. This letter has not been noticed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the
argument of Mr. S.B. Sanyal that the appellant is not entitled for another flat
has no force at all.

H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20()4) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Now, we come to the maintainability of the writ petition. We have
already elaborately extracted the arguments advanced by both the senior
counsel on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and hence, we
are not repeating the same again.

In the instant case, the Division Bench authorised Mr. Arun P. Sarkar,
B an advocate, to act as Special Officer and to take immediate steps to have the
construction work continued and while taking steps to try and negotiate with
Mis Mukhje and Associates to have the work done through them. In· discharge
of his statutory function, the Special Officer of the Society issued letter dated
6.4.1985 (annexure P-7) to all the members to clear their dues in respect of
C the flat allotted to them as soon as possible. The very same Special Officer,
exercising his statutory function, issued a letter dated 1.11.1988 (Annexure
P-10) to the father of the appellant herein that since no claim for transfer of
the interest of late Sati Prasanna Bhowmick has been made in time by the
legal heirs, the flat in question has already been re-allotted and since no
claim for payment of the value of the share or interest has been made by any
D person entitled in law to receive the payment !yin£ in the deceased member's
account after deduction of the amount, if any, payable to the Society. The
Society will make payment in accordance with law.

The appellant herein filed a writ petition in question in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent therein not to give effect to the letter
E dated 1.11.1988 issued by the Special Officer of the Society and to forbear
from acting on the basis thereof and pursuant thereto: Thus it is seen that the
subject matter of the writ petition is the order passed by the Special Officer
in discharging of his statutory funetions, the w.rit petition~is maintainable in
law. The Special Officer is appointed under the provisions of the Act and as
F such he is a statutory Officer and, therefore, he should be regarded as a
public authority. Apart from that Art. 226 of the Constitution is not confined
to issue of writ only to a public authority, the power extends also to issue
directions to any person. In our opinion, in a case where the Cooperative
Society is under the control of a Special Officer, a writ would lie.

G In support of his submissions, Mr. S.B. Sanyal cited a decision of the
Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of Kannan P., Tamilarasan,
H and Ors. v. The Director of Sugars, Office of the Director of Sugars etc.,
(1991) 2 Law Weekly Madras 409.

In the case of G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute
H and Anr., [2003] 4 sec 225, this Court" dealt with the case of the Society by
GAYATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 3 75

name, International Crops Research Institution and as to whether a writ under A
Article 226 is maintainable in law. This Court held that the Institute was
neither set up by a statute nor are its activities statutorily controlled nor does
it perform a public or statutory duty or a public function. This Court, therefore,
held that a writ petition filed against the Society by its employee was not
maintainable.
B
In the case of General Manager, Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.,
Sultanpur, U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and Ors., [2003] 8 SCC 639, this Court
dealt with a case of Co-operative Sugar Mill. The Bench held that the form
in which body is constituted, namely, whether as a Society or Co-operative
Society or Company is not decisive and the real status of the body with C
respect to the control of the Government to be looked into. Applying the
principles laid down in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi,
[1981] 1 SCC 722, to the facts of the present case, the Bench held that the
appellant-Mill was neither an instrumentality nor an agency of the Government
and hence was not an "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
However, the Bench also held that in different facts/situations, different factors D
could be found to be overwhelming and indicative of whether the ~ody is an
"other authority".

In the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology and Ors., [2002] 5 SCC 111, this Court, by majority, was of the
E
.. opinion that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is an authority
within Article 12 of the Constitution. On facts and on the material available,
this Court recorded a positive finding that CSIR is a Society owned and
controlled by the Government.

The decision in the case of Ram Sahan Ra/ v. Sachiv Samanaya F
Prabandhak and Anr., [2001] 3 SCC 323, can also be usefully followed and
applied to the case on hand. In this case, the appellant, who was a Clerk in
the Co-operative Bank was removed from services for a certain act of
misconduct without affording any opportunity to defend himself. His suit
challenging the order of removal was decreed by the lower appellate Court.
However, the High Court while agreeing with the findings of the lower G
appellate Court that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and contrary
to Regulation 85, set aside the decree on the ground that the suit was essentially
one for enforcement of a contract of personal service and was, therefore, not
maintainable. Allowing the appeal, this Court held that the status of the
District Co-operative Bank is of a co-operatiye Society, registered under the H
I
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and constituted under the U.P. Co-
operative Land Development Bank Act, 1964. The Bench held that on an
examination of different provisions of the rules, bye-laws and regulations,
unequivocally indicates that the State Government exercises all-pervasive
control over the Bank and its employees are governed by the statutory rules
B prescribing the entire gamut of procedure of initiation of disciplinary
proceedings etc. Therefore, the Bench held that the respondent-Bank is
undoubtedly an instrumentality of the State and hence amenable to jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In the case of UP. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd v.
C Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors., [1999] l SCC 741, the maintainability of the
writ petition against U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd.
was in question. This Court, on consideration of the provisions of the Act and
the Rules, held that the Bank is an instrumentality of the State or an authority
as mentioned under Article 12 of the Constitution and that the service
conditions of its employees, particularly, in regard to disciplinary proceedings
D are statutory in nature and hence writ petition filed by its dismissed employees
to challenge the order of their dismissal was maintainable.

In the case of S.R. Tewari v. Dist. Board, Agra, AIR (1964) SC 1680,
this Court held that the powers of statutory authorities were always subject
E to the statute which has constituted it and must be exercised consistently with
the statute, and the Courts have, in appropriate cases, the power to declare
an action of the body illegal or ultra vires, even if the action relates to
..
determination of employment of a servant.

We have, in paragraphs supra, considered the judgments for and against
F on the question of maintainability of writ petition. The judgment cited by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on
facts an!f on law. Those cases are not cases covered by the appointment of
a Special Officer to manage· the administration of the Society and its affairs.
In the instant case, the Special Officer was appointed by the High Court to
discharge the functions of the Society, therefore, he sh-0uld be regarded as a
G public authority and hence, the writ petition is maintainable.

The appellant being one of the heirs of the deceased member, in our
opinion, is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased and that being so,
the right, title and interest of the deceased member in the apartment of the
H Society devolves upon his heirs and the aforesaid Section 85(3) and Rule
135(3) cannot have any application in the instant case.
GAYATRI DE v.MOUSUMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 377

It is unfortunate that the Society made the project and constructed the A
flats on the land owned by the appellant's father and sold by him to the
Society. The Society has taken such a rigid and technical stand to deprive the
allottee's own daughter to get the flat that was originally booked by her
father, even after complying with all necessary formalities. We, therefore,
hold that the prayer made in this appeal by the appellant deserves to have a
consideration and, therefore, we accept the prayer of the appellant and allow
the appeal and issue a mandamus directing the respondents and, in particular,
the Secretary of the Mousumi Co-operative Housing Society, Calcutta to take
immediate steps for transfer of the flat in question in favour of the appellant
and also hand over the flat to the appellant upon payment of the balance
amount and payable after adjusting the amount paid by her father, Sati Prasanna C
Bhowmick.

The appeal stands allowed. Though this case is eminently a fit case to
award exemplary cost, we, by taking a lenient view of the matter, say no
costs.
D
R.P. Appeal allowed .

•