JUDGMENT
Devinder Gupta, J.
(1) Orders (annexure-A and C) passed respectively by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi Administration and the Financial Commissioner, Delhi are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Respondent No.4 made a complaint and thereby raised a dispute as regards the membership of the petitioner in the Wazirabad Multipurpose Co- operative Society Limited alleging that the petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms of Rule 25(1)(c) of the Delhi Co-operative societies Rules, as such, his name was liable to be struck off as a member of the society in question. It was alleged that the petitioner owns plot No.9, Block 14, in Indira Vikas Colony and had also been allotted plot No.B-102 in the society, which was contrary to the Rules. was alleged that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was allotted plot No.9 in block No.14, Indra Vikas Colony and because of this he had incurred disqualification. A reference accordingly was made under the Delhi Co-operative societies rules, 1972.
(3) The Registrar, Co-operative Societies through his order dated 16.4.1992 (annexure-A) allowed the complaint of respondent No.4 and held that the petitioner had incurred disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c) of the Rules and, therefore, his membership in Wazirabad Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. be ceased. Aggrieved against this order, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner under Section 80 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner on 22.9.1994 dismissed the revision through in his order (annexure-C) holding that the Registrar after full enquiry had come to his conclusion that the petitioner had been allotted a plot from the Deputy Commissioner’s Office and no interference was called for with such conclusion arrived at by the Registrar that the petitioner owns plot No.9, Block 14 in Indira Vikas Colony. The above orders of the Registrar Co-operative societies and the Financial Commissioner are under challenge in this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner.
(4) The main grievance of the petitioner is that he does not own any plot, as alleged by respondent No.4. It was not proved by respondent No.4 in the enquiry before the Registrar that on the basis of the alleged allotment the petitioner was ever put in possession of the so called plot No.9, Block 14, Indira Vikas Colony. It was on surmises and conjectures that the Registrar proceeded to draw an inference that the petitioner must have been made an allotment of the plot and delivered possession. It was urged before the Registrar that villages Wazirabad and Jagat Pur were flood prone areas. Residents of these villages were allotted alternative sites in 1958. Petitioner was one of such allotees of plot No.9, Block 14 in the Resettlement area, which was later named as Indira Vikas Colony. The fact of allotment was denied by the petitioner. The Registrar proceeded to hold that since petitioner’s name was in the list of allotees, therefore, it was for the petitioner to show that he was not allotted the plot. It was contended that though his name figured in the list of allottees but he was never put in possession of the plot in question and the proposal did not materialise latter on. Neither the petitioner was put in possession nor he owns the property. The petitioner had no right, title or interest in the said plot No.9, block 14 in the Resettlement area, which latter on was named as Indira Vikas Colony. In the absence of any proof of ownership or further evidence that pursuant to the proposal for allotment, the petitioner was put in possession, both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.
(5) When the matter was called for hearing, nobody appeared for the respondent. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has taken us to the entire record. We have also gone through the impugned orders.
(6) The order of the Registrar proceeds on the assumption that since as per the proposal, which was put up by the Deputy Commissioner’s office pursuant to which it was decided at the level of the Chief Secretary that the original allottees who had already deposited the money should be allowed to retain the plots allotted to them, therefore, in the absence of any proof by the petitioner that such allotment stood cancelled, it is presumed that the allotment in petitioner’s favour subsists and, therefore, he had incurred disqualification. The order reads:- @SUBPARA = “A perusal of the available material shows that the scheme of shifting of the residents of villages Jagatpur and Wazirabad seems to have been undertaken by the office of the D.C.Delhi to combat the threat of flood water affecting the residents of these villages. It further seem that certain land was earmarked for this purpose and the residents were asked to deposit certain amounts. Later on certain plots were also allotted to some of the residents. It is also true that a proposal a later put up by the D.C.Delhi on 5.10.83 saying that no more land was available for the settlement and because of the construction of a new ‘Bund’ the threat of flood had also gone. In the circumstances, it was proposed to treat the matter as closed. However, a further perusal of these note shows that it was also decided at the level of the C.S. that the original allottees who had already deposited the money should be allowed to retain the plots allotted to them. It is also on record of the D.C.’s office that the name of the respondent appears on the list of the people who had paid the lease money and who had been allotted specific plots in the Indira Vikas Colony. It was, therefore, for the respondent to prove that in spite of the decision of the C.S. his plot was cancelled and that the money was refunded to him. He has not taken any such plea nor has he produced any documentary evidence to show the cancellation of the said allotment and refund of the money. In the circumstances I am inclined to reject his submissions in the matter and hold that the respondent has incurred disqualification under Rule 25(I)(c) of the said Rules and, therefore, his membership in the Wazirabad Cooperative Multi-purpose Society Ltd., be ceased. I decide accordingly.”
(7) Such an inference, which has been drawn by the Registrar in the above quoted portion, in the facts and circumstances, ought not to have been drawn without affording an opportunity to the petitioner that it was only a proposal, which had been made for allotment of land and that at no point of time the petitioner was ever put in possession of the plot in question and that either the allotment stood cancelled or money was refunded. Complaint had been made by respondent No.4 pursuant thereto reference was made. The material relied upon by the Registrar was not relied upon by respondent No.4. In view of the said material, it was necessary to allow the petitioner an opportunity to show that pursuant to the proposal for allotment the petitioner did not acquire ownership rights or any other right, title or interest in the plot in question. As such the order of the Registrar is bad in law including the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, who without further discussion affirmed the order of the Registrar by merely observing that it was on full enquiry that a legitimate inference was drawn. Both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.
(8) Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside with direction to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the material. The parties are directed to appear before the Registrar on 20.10.1997 at 11 a.m. who will proceed to dispose of the reference within a period of three months from the date when parties will appear before him. Parties are left to bear respective costs.