In a writ petition challenging the denial of a plot allotment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petitioner's claim. The court held the petitioner lacked title because the alleged vendor never received the specific plot in question.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 25.3.2011
Manvinderpal Singh son of Hari Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
This case has a very chequered history. However, the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that The Shakti Cooperative House Building Society Limited (respondent No.2) (for brevity “respondent-Society”) is governed by the provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). It had purchased the land from Jiwan Singh, Gian Singh and Teja Singh sons of Atma Singh of village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to its members. The petitioner claimed that the remaining land measuring 3000 square yards was also given to the respondentSociety on the mutual understanding that it (respondent-Society) would allot three plots to them (vendor/owners). The resolution dated 5.6.1972 was claimed to have been passed by the respondent-Society in this regard. Later on, the entire land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana for Model Town Extension Part-II Scheme. According to the petitioner, Jiwan Singh kept demanding the plot as per promise, but the respondent-Society did not allot on the pretext of non-availability of plot measuring 500 square yards. Bhajan Kaur, wife and Gurmukh Singh, son of one of the vendor/owners Jiwan Singh, became the members and the respondent-
Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 2
Society was stated to have allotted two plots measuring 150 square yards each to them.
“As such, the impugned order dated 27.1.93 does not stand on its legs and accordingly it is set aside. As a sequence, the impugned order dated 23.9.94 is also set aside accepting the revision petition.
The matter regarding offer of 3000 sq.yd. land free of cost by respondent No.3 in favour of the society needs scrutinize of facts because the counsel for the respondent No.1,2 & 3 vehemently stated that this fact has never been denied by the counsel for the petitioner whereas the counsel
Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 3
for the parties has categorically denied. Therefore, the case is remanded to Dy.Registrar, Coop.Socs. , Ludhiana to the extent of proving as to whether land measuring 3000 sq.yd. was ever given free of cost by respondent No.3 to the society and further was it mandatory on the part of society to compensate this respondent on account of this offer made in favour of the society. This contention may be proved on record after hearing both the parties and seeking the relevant record. The court below will give reasonable opportunities to the parties to lead evidence, if any, to establish this issue. Decision to be given by Dy.Registrar will be implemented in accordance with the bye-law of the society and in view of the Improvement Trust letter bearing No.12T/5243 dated 23.10.90. The parties have been directed to appear before Dy.Registrar, Ludhiana on 6.6.97.”
Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 4
Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 5
petitioner, to me, the obvious answer is in the negative and the petitioner is not entitled for allotment/transfer of plot bearing No.518 as claimed by him.
Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 6
circumstances.
“On hearing the versions and arguments of both the parties and on seeking the concerned record I have reached a conclusion that the plot No.518 was never allotted to Bhajan Kaur by the Society because as per the records of the Society the said plot was allotted to Smt.Gurdev Kaur. Therefore, Smt.Bhajan Kaur was not the owner of plot No.518. On account of not being an owner she could not sell this plot further to any person. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana West is upheld.”
Civil Writ Petition No.5410 of 2011 7
hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) 25.3.2011 Judge AS
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is legally entitled to the allotment or transfer of plot No.518 based on the transfer of his vendor's share.
Whether the impugned orders denying the petitioner's claim were perverse and without apparent legal jurisdiction warranting interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Manvinderpal Singh
State of Punjab
The Shakti Cooperative House Building Society Limited
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
