Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/7049/2025 of SHRI ATAMJIT LAL MALHOTRA & ANR. Vs REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ORS. on 25 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010325212025 + W.P.(C) 7049/2025 SHRI ATAMJIT LAL MALHOTRA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh and Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates. Petitioner no.1 in person. versus REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ORS. .....Respondents
$~5
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010325212025
+
W.P.(C) 7049/2025
SHRI ATAMJIT LAL MALHOTRA & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through:
Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh and Ms.
Punam Singh, Advocates. Petitioner
no.1 in person.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ORS. .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel
Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Sameer
Vashishta, Advocate for R-1
Ms. Leena Tuteja, , Ms Ishita Kadyan
& Mr. Tanvir Singh Choudharie,
Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
25.09.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners – Shri Atamjit Lal Malhotra and Shri Jagdish Chand, inter alia, seeking allotment of flats in the Respondent No. 3-M/s Chinar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘Society’).
3. The case of the Petitioners is that they became members of the Society, however, their membership was cancelled on the ground that they had resigned. The stand of the Petitioners is that they had never resigned from the membership, and were fraudulently removed from the Society.
4. Further, allegations were also made against the then management of the Society, which, according to the Petitioners, had issued membership even in favour of certain deceased persons, and, on account of these irregularities, the Petitioners contend that the cancellation of their membership deserves to be withdrawn, and that they deserve to be inducted as members of the Society and allotted flats.
5. However, the stand of the Society is that, initially, it had a strength of 120 members. The names of the Petitioners were mentioned at serial numbers 92 and 104, in the list of 120 members, which was sent to the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’), in 1997. Out of the 120 members, 60 were promoters members and 60 were enrolled members.
6. However, the number of members was reduced to 108 members in the year 2001. Presently, the strength of members is 108.
7. As far as the Management of the Society is concerned, the stand of the Society is that there were several resignations in the Society, which had actually created a difficult situation for the Society, and it was in dire financial circumstances. The Society then had to mortgage the plot and land in the Society and raise a loan, and after raising the loan, the construction of the plot was initiated.
8. Further, it is also the stand of the Society that in one writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 10066/2004 titled ‘The Yogi Raj Krishna Cooperative Group Housing Society ltd. v. DDA’ which was filed, the CBI investigated various cooperative group housing societies and chargesheet was also filed against eight persons, out of whom two were part of the present Society.
9. Subsequently, the Society had also published a list of resigned members as also the list of 108 members, inviting objections regarding clearance of membership of allotment flat/plot. However, no objections were filed.
10. The Petitioners filed Arbitration Case No. 31/GH/JR/ARB/2011-12 and Arbitration Case No.66/GH/JR/ARB/2011-12 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’), however, the same was dismissed due to limitation and was not challenged. It thus attained finality.
11. Thus, it is the stand of the Society that the Petitioners had not made any payment whatsoever for the construction, and as on date, there are no empty flats in the Society, and there are 108 members, to whom flats have been allotted.
11. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Society is that the Petitioners are not entitled to any membership.
12. A specific question has been put to the Petitioners as to the amount of money paid by them towards membership of the Society, to which the Petitioner No. 1 submits that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid.
13. In the opinion of this Court, too much water has flown under the bridge. As on date, there is no vacant flat available in the Society. The Petitioners’ membership was cancelled long back, pursuant to which arbitration proceedings were also invoked by the Petitioners. The arbitration case was dismissed. However, no challenge was raised to the same, and the claim of the Petitioners stood rejected.
14. The Petitioners, at this belated stage, cannot seek membership of the Society and allotment of flats. The fact that the Society was investigated by the CBI would not, by itself, entitle the Petitioners to membership in the manner sought by them. Since there are 108 flats in the Society, all of which have already been allotted, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners in the present petition.
15. The present petition is accordingly dismissed in these facts. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J
DINESH BHATT, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 ‘rs’/sm