Summary
A cooperative housing society allotted a plot to an outsider despite an eligible depositor’s claim. The Court upheld cancellation of the outsider’s allotment and sale deed because he had neither contributed towards the land nor qualified under the society’s allotment arrangement. It also confined fresh allotment to the eligible depositors who had exercised the prescribed option, without ordering a direct allotment to the respondent.
Issues
- Whether an outsider’s allotment could prevail over the claim of an eligible depositor.
- What directions should govern fresh allotment after cancellation.
Held
- The respondent’s deposit and exercise of the option established eligibility. Withdrawal of an earlier deposit did not disqualify her from relying on the later deposit; her husband’s separate membership did not establish that she sought two plots. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- The appellant had paid neither the prescribed contribution nor share money and had not exercised the option. The conditional permission to admit outsiders if funds were needed did not justify giving him preference over eligible depositors. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The sale deed executed in violation of an injunction created no equity in the appellant’s favour, and subsequent ratification could not sustain the impugned allotment. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- The respondent’s earlier unsuccessful challenge to denial of direct allotment could not be reopened. Fresh allotment should be confined to those who exercised the option under the resolution of 18 December 1988, whose options were accepted, and who had not otherwise received plots. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
Result
The appeal was dismissed without costs. Cancellation of the appellant’s allotment and sale deed was upheld. The society was directed to undertake fresh allotment within the eligible class identified by the Court; no direct allotment to the respondent was ordered.