Held that living alone in a particular house will not mean that the said house is owned by the person living in it. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal was hearing an appeal challenging the order passed by a single judge of the high court.
In this case, as per the provisions of UP, a society was formed by the name of Purushottam Bagh (Residential) Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Dayal Bagh, Agra. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. In the said society, the respondents’ predecessor-late Krishan Pal Singh was one of the members. The said Society developed a residential colony in which a plot was allotted in favor of Krishan Pal Singh and a sale deed in his favor was executed on 14.07.1983.
Under the bye-laws of the society, a residential plot can be allotted to a member only if he resides or intends to reside within the operational area of the society, provided he or his family member does not own any building or plot in the area. Of running the society. Under the bye-laws, ‘family’ of such member means husband, wife and dependent minor children.
Krishna Pal Singh deposed on an affidavit that he did not own any building or plot in the area of operation of the Society and presumably in the light of such undertaking, the above plot was allotted to him and the sale deed was executed.
After about 26 years, the Society referred the matter to the sole arbitrator, i.e. Co-operative Officer (Resident), Agra, in respect of the price of the land sold vide sale deed dated 14.07.1983. The society alleged in its petition that Krishna Pal Singh had a private house in which he lived and he did not need the concerned plot and he had purchased it from the society to sell it to a third party at a higher rate. He had acquired this piece of land by giving a false affidavit.
The above Krishna Pal Singh died in 1992 and was succeeded by his two sons Lt. Col. Upendra Pal Singh and Shobhan Pal Singh, whose names were duly changed in the records of the Society as owners of the said plot on his death. their father.
The heirs of Krishan Pal Singh opposed the arbitration proceedings alleging that the arbitration reference was not maintainable as it did not fall within the scope of Section 70 of the UP. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.
His father had erected a boundary wall on the said plot after the building plan was approved by the society and he had also deposited the development fee with the society. His father never owned any house or building in the Society’s operational area. Therefore, the allotment and sale deed of the said plot does not deserve to be cancelled.
As the sale deed could not be canceled by or despite the maintainability of the reference to the arbitrator, a judgment was given declaring the sale deed null and void. An appeal was filed against the above decision and the same was also dismissed.
The heirs of Krishan Pal Singh used the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to attack the award and appellate order declaring the sale deed dated 14.07.1983 as invalid. After the contest the said writ petition was accepted.
The bench considered Section 5(1) and Section 3(10) of the bye-laws of the society and observed that the family of a member of the society means husband, wife and dependent minor children and no member of the society is entitled to any such provision. For allotment of any plot if he himself or his family member owns any building or plot in the operational area of the Society.
The Supreme Court said that the appellant is alleging violation of the above bye-laws, hence the onus is on him to prove it. In this context, the Writ Court has made a specific finding that the Society has failed to produce any evidence before the Arbitrator to prove its allegation that the petitioners own land or house in Agra and that Krishan Pal Singh or his heirs Has violated someone. Regarding the terms of the sale deed or the bye-laws of the society.
The bench, after perusing the arbitrator’s award and the order of the appellate authority, observed that the arbitrator had not recorded any finding that Krishan Pal Singh had given a false affidavit or that he owned any house or plot of land in the area of his operations. Society. The only finding recorded by the arbitrator is that at the time of allotment, he had stated his address as F150 Kamla Nagar, Agra where his heirs are still residing. However, such a finding falls short of saying that the address at which he was residing was a house which belonged to him or his family members as defined under the bye-laws or that his heirs are the owners of the said house in their capacity.
The Supreme Court held that mere living in a particular house would not mean that the said house is owned by the person living in it in his personal capacity or even that it is within the jurisdiction of the society.