Summary
Although a cooperative-society member had litigated for a larger plot, the record indicated that possession of even the smaller plot allotted to her had never been delivered. The Supreme Court used Article 142 to direct a Registrar-led inquiry into the original allotment and subsequent re-allotment after the earlier allotments were cancelled. Confirmed allotment would entitle her to possession of a 250-square-yard plot, with appropriate relief if that plot was unavailable, after hearing affected persons.
Issues
- Whether failure previously to seek possession expressly should defeat relief where the record showed non-delivery.
- What inquiry and conditional relief were necessary concerning the allotment and re-allotment.
Held
- The society’s own affidavit and the record indicated that possession had not been delivered. The member could not be deprived of an allotted plot merely because her earlier grievances had focused on obtaining a larger one. (¶ 15–18)
- To do complete justice, the Registrar was directed to inquire personally or through a delegate whether the Administrator had allotted a plot and whether the society made a fresh allotment after cancellation of the earlier allotments. (¶ 18)
- If allotment was established, the member was entitled to possession of a 250-square-yard plot. If the allotted plot was unavailable, necessary redress was to be ordered after hearing affected persons; a suitable available plot from the society’s land in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar was to be allotted. (¶ 19)
- The inquiry and relief were conditional on factual determination and hearing affected persons, preferably within four months of production of the certified order. No unconditional entitlement to a 500-square-yard plot was declared. (¶ 18–20)
Result
Appeals disposed of with directions for the Registrar’s inquiry, hearing and appropriate allotment or possession relief, preferably within four months of production of the certified order.