Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6805 OF 2013

Delhi Development Authority … Appellant(s)

Versus

Bankmens Co-operative Group Housing

Society Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6803-6804 OF 2013

Delhi Development Authority … Appellant(s)

Versus

Safdarjung Co-operative Group Housing

Society Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8627 OF 2014

Palwell CGHS Ltd. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Anr. …Respondent(s)

Page 2 2

J U D G M E N T

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

C.A.NO. 6805 OF 2013 & C.A.NOS. 6803-6804 OF 2013

These appeals are being disposed of by a common

judgment since common issues of fact and law are involved.

2. We may first refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 6805 of

2013 relating to Bankmens Co-operative Group Housing Society

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bankmens CGHS’). Some

employees of the State Bank of India resolved to form a

Co-operative Group Housing Society, namely Bankmens CGHS

Ltd., on 06.10.1983 under the Chairmanship of one Deepak

Khanna. The Society was registered with one Shri R.K. Mangla,

as its Secretary. The Society had given a list of 74 promoter

members. Correspondence was exchanged between the

Bankmens CGHS, Registrar of Co-operative Societies

(hereinafter referred to as ‘RCS’) and the Delhi Development

Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘DDA’). The Bankmens

CGHS did not comply with various directions of the RCS and it

Page 3 3

was placed under liquidation on 30.03.1992. Though

Liquidator was appointed, he did not take over the records of

the Bankmens CGHS.

3. Some time between 1999-2000, almost after 16-17 years

the Bankmens CGHS had been formed, and 7 years after it was

placed under liquidation, an application for revival of the

Society was filed by one Rajan Chopra. Admittedly he was not

one of the original promoters of the Society. Though initially,

objections were raised to the revival of the Society, the Society

was finally revived on 13.07.2000. On 22.08.2000, a list of 74

members of the Bankmens CGHS was approved for allotment of

land and on 02.11.2001, the appellant DDA issued provisional

Letter of Allotment of land to the Society. Though the land was

allotted yet the same was not handed over to the Society.

Aggrieved by this, the Bankmens CGHS filed a Writ Petition

No.1521 of 2004 before the Delhi High Court in 2004 and on

31.05.2004, this petition was disposed of with a direction that

land be provided to the Bankmens CGHS. Against this, the

DDA filed an LPA No. 912 of 2004 which was disposed of on

08.02.2006, directing that the verification of members be

Page 4 4

undertaken either by the DDA or by the RCS and, thereafter,

possession of land be handed over to the Society within a period

of two months subject to making payment as demanded by

the DDA.

4. The case of the appellant is that when it requested the

RCS to verify the names of the members, the reply given was

that all the records of the Bankmens CGHS were with the

Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the

‘CBI’) pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court of

Delhi in Writ Petition No. 10066 of 2004, filed by one Yogi Raj

Krishna Bankmens Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. &

Ors. Thereafter, DDA wrote to the CBI but the CBI did not

provide the record and replied that it was the duty of the RCS

to verify the names of the members. In the year 2012, the

Bankmens CGHS filed another Writ Petition No. 3546 of 2012

praying for directions to the DDA to handover the vacant

possession of plot pursuant to the directions in LPA No.912 of

2004 decided on 08.02.2006. The Writ Petition was disposed of

on 23.07.2012. The Delhi High Court directed the DDA to

Page 5 5

process the case of the Bankmens CGHS for possession of plot

within a period of one month. This order is under challenge in

Civil Appeal No. 6805 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No.18747 of 2013.

5. The facts of Safdarjung Co-operative Group Housing

Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘Safdarjung CGHS’), are

similar. The Safdarjung CGHS was registered with the RCS on

18.11.1983. One Shri Sudarshan Tandon moved an

application on 09.08.1983 for registration of the Safdarjung

CGHS showing that it had 83 promoter members. The Society

wanted to change the names of its members but this action was

not approved by the RCS and finally on 06.11.1990 an order

was passed for liquidating the Safdarjung CGHS. Some of the

records of the Safdarjung CGHS came into possession of one

Mahanand Sharma who was not even a member of the

Safdarjung CGHS. On 01.12.1998, an application was moved

by Mahanand Sharma for revival of the Safdarjung CGHS.

Thereafter the Safdarjung CGHS was revived on 26.04.1999.

On 24.11.1999 the Office of the RCS recommended the name of

Safdarjung CGHS for allotment of land. After the Society was

Page 6 6

revived, like in the case of Bankmens CGHS, a plot of land was

provisionally allotted to Safdarjung CGHS. Thereafter,

Safdarjung CGHS filed a Writ Petition No.1990 of 2004, which

was disposed of along with the case of Bankmens CGHS (WP

No. 1521 of 2004). Aggrieved by this order, an LPA No.904 of

2004 was filed by the DDA in this case also and identical order

was passed for verification of the members. Thereafter, similar

correspondence took place between the DDA, Office of the RCS

and the CBI.

6. On 03.03.2011, Safdarjung CGHS filed a Writ Petition (C)

No. 13298 of 2009 in the High Court of Delhi claiming that

though it had paid the amount demanded to the DDA, the plot

of land in Dhirpur had not been handed over on account of the

CBI case pending against the office bearers of the Society. The

High Court directed that the RCS should initiate fresh enquiry

into the list of members submitted by the Safdarjung CGHS

and it may also rely upon the investigation undertaken by the

CBI. On 14.09.2011 enquiry report was submitted and it was

found that the list of members was not authentic. Thereafter,

Page 7 7

the RCS on 10.01.2012 passed an order that the names of the

members of the respondent Safdarjung CGHS cannot be

recommended to the DDA for allotment of land.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the RCS on

28.01.2012, Safdarjung CGHS filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1168 of

2012 claiming that the Society was a genuine Society and the

Writ Petition was disposed of on 27.02.2012 on the ground that

the case of the Safdarjung CGHS was identical to the case of

Lords Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Registrar,

Cooperative Societies and Ors., which was disposed of on

23.05.2011. The RCS was directed to take fresh decision in the

matter. Thereafter, on 02.05.2012, the RCS recommended the

names of the members of Safdarjung CGHS to the DDA. After

the decision of the High Court in Bankmens CGHS’s case on

23.07.2012, the Safdarjung CGHS filed Writ Petition (C) No.

5109 of 2012 claiming relief of physical possession of the

allotted plot. The High Court disposed of the petition upon the

statement of the counsel for DDA that the plot would be handed

over to the Society within a period 15 days. It is not disputed

Page 8 8

that possession of this plot was actually handed over to the

Safdarjung CGHS pursuant to this order. Both the order dated

27.02.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.1168 of 2012 and order dated

22.08.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.5109 of 2012 have been

challenged in C.A. Nos. 6803-6804 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos.

3268-3269 of 2013.

8. Another important fact which is relevant for decision of

these cases is that the DDA had fixed a cut-off date of

31.10.2003 for allotment of land to the short-listed societies.

One Yogi Raj Krishna CGHS filed a Writ Petition No. 10066 of

2004 alleging that a large number of bogus societies which were

either non-existent or defunct, or otherwise were not eligible for

allotment of land had been included in the list of societies after

the cut-off date. In this Writ Petition a Division Bench of the

Delhi High Court in its order dated 25.08.2008 observed

as follows :-

“3. During the pendency of proceedings and on

consideration of the material on record, it was felt that the

matter required further probe and consideration on account

of ‘Builders’ having taken over Cooperative Societies. It was

Page 9 9

observed in order dated 22.11.2004, that societies were

being sold and bought by builders in Delhi. Court

expressed its deep concern over the matter and called for

Vice Chairman, DDA and Registrar of Cooperative Societies

to be present in person in court. Pursuant to said order Mr.

M. Gupta, Vice Chairman, DDA and Mr. S. Gopal Sharma,

Registrar Cooperative Societies, appeared in person in court

and they informed that authorities were aware that after

allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Societies in

certain cases, the society as a whole is purchased by

Builders and thereafter members are changed on the basis

of en masse resignations, expulsions and new members

inducted by charging premium at market rates, taking

advantage of loopholes in the Rules and Regulations. The

Court observed the need for formulation of a comprehensive

policy with regard to allotment of land to Cooperative

Societies taking into account the above factors. Union of

India was also issued notice and has filed its affidavit.

Learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that an

earnest attempt was being made to see that land allotted to

societies was not hijacked by the builder mafia in Delhi and

certain suggestions were placed on record.

4. On 05.04.2005, DDA was directed to file an

affidavit pertaining to the categorization of societies i.e. list

of those societies which underwent liquidation and now

were seeking revival and allotment of land and the list of

genuine societies which had approved list of members till

31.10.2003, from the office of Registrar Cooperative

Societies, with their membership duly verified.

5. Considering the enormous amount of money that

had been pumped in and invested by the influential Builder

mafia and other vested interests, collusion and complicity of

the staff and officers of RCS and others to hijack the

societies, Director CBI was directed to constitute a special

investigation team headed by an officer not below the rank

of DIG with adequate staff to investigate the whole matter.

On 31.08.2005, counsel appearing for CBI informed about

outcome of preliminary investigation. CBI was directed to

file a detailed affidavit in this regard. On 03.10.2005 CBI

filed status report wherein it pointed out that out of 135

societies, 19 societies appeared to be genuine, the names of

said societies had been given in Annexure A to the report.

On the same date the names of those societies were ordered

to be deleted from the list of 135 societies which were

Page 10 10

directed to be scanned by the CBI. Registrar Cooperative

Societies was directed to verify the list of members in

accordance with law.

6. During the pendency of proceedings, this Court

further noted that many societies had been allotted land

after the year 2000. It was noted that as the price of the

land started soaring in Delhi after the year 2000, this spurt

in land prices led to unholy nexus between builders and

powerful persons in various authorities. Societies which

were hitherto defunct or had lost interest in allotment for

one reason or another were sought to be revived by the

office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and thereafter

land was demanded from DDA on the basis of such

recommendation. The Court ordered DDA and Registrar of

Cooperative Societies to give details of all the societies

which were allotted land after the year 2000 and also

directed them to produce the relevant files in court along

with recommendations of allotment to DDA. CBI was

directed to look into those allotments and also with regard

to the members who had been allotted land. Mr. K.C.

Mittal, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the

Court.”

The High Court observed that since the builder mafia was very

influential and there was collusion between the builder mafia

and officers of the RCS, the investigation should be carried on

by the CBI. The Director, CBI submitted his report pointing out

that out of the 135 societies only 19 appeared to be genuine.

The CBI both in the case of Bankmens CGHS and Safdarjung

CGHS filed chargesheet against some of the office bearers of

these two Societies and also officials of the RCS and the RCS

Page 11 11

himself, alleging that the Societies were revived in an

illegal manner.

9. As far as Bankmens CGHS is concerned the charges are

that the revival application was filed by one Rajan Chopra by

hatching a criminal conspiracy along with officials of RCS and

Shri R.K. Srivastava, Registrar of the RCS, to fabricate and

manufacture false documents to revive the Bankmens CGHS.

The address of the Society was changed. It is also alleged that

Rajan Chopra submitted a forged ‘No Objection Certificate’

dated 29.12.1999 purported to have been issued by Shri Vipin

Gandotra, Proprietor of M/s VG & Co., in this regard. Initially,

when the official of the RCS went to the address he found that

no such Society was existing at the address and, therefore, he

recommended that the Society should not be revived. However,

another Dealing Assistant prepared a false note which was

forwarded by other officials of the RCS at the instance of the

then RCS R.K. Srivastava and the Society was revived. The

case of the CBI is that though a fresh list of 74 members was

given, not even one of these members was from the original list

of 74 members when the Society was incorporated in the year

Page 12 12

1983. The case of the CBI further is that 35% of the cost of the

land had to be paid by the Society to the appellant DDA. This

money, according to the CBI was not paid by the enrolled

members of the Society but a group of builders comprising of

accused S.P. Saxena and Sandeep Sahni who had taken over

control of the Society and paid a sum of Rs. 67,38,800/- from

their joint S.B. Account No. 18699 with the Central Bank of

India, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi Branch. Thus the

case of the CBI is that this Society was illegally revived. It

would be pertinent to mention here that after the filing of SLP

(C)…CC No. 2696 of 2013 (CA No. 6805 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No.

18747/2013), this Court passed an order on 29.01.2013

directing the appellant DDA to file an additional affidavit. In

this affidavit it has been mentioned that the Bankmens CGHS

was registered at 21, Inder Enclave, Rohtak Road, New Delhi,

with 65 promoter members but on 31.07.1985, Shri R.K.

Mangla, requested the RCS to approve a list of 74 members.

Some issues were raised by the RCS but the Bankmens CGHS

did not respond to the letter of the RCS and, thereafter, the

Society was placed under liquidation. When the accused Rajan

Page 13 13

Chopra filed an application for revival of the Society on

11.11.1999 the address of the Society was changed to 44/7-B,

Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The allegation is

that the Society was revived fraudulently and that the names of

the members of the Bankmens Society as in 1993 were never

forwarded to the RCS at the time of revival of the Society and

fresh members were inducted. Even the list of members

pertaining to the year 1999 is totally different from the list of

members as on 31.03.2003 and this list has been changed

substantially on 31.03.2011. There were many resignations

and new additions of new members. None of the original

members of the Society whose names were listed in the list that

was forwarded to the DDA on 22.08.2000, feature in the list of

members of the Bankmens Society as on 31.03.2011. The

entire membership list is totally different. Even out of the list of

74 members as given on 31.03.2003 there are only 13 members

in the list of members as on 31.03.2011 and the other 61

members were totally new.

Page 14 14

10.As far as the membership of Safdarjung CGHS is

concerned, the facts are very similar. It would be pertinent to

refer to the inquiry report in respect of this Society filed in the

High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 13298 of 2009. In the

enquiry report it was observed that the Society was initially

formed on 18.11.1983 with 83 members. This Society was

wound up in the year 1990 and as such there was virtually no

society which could be revived. Be that as it may, the next list

of members is of the year 1999. This list was submitted by one

Mahanand Sharma. It would be pertinent to mention that

Mahanand Sharma was not a member of the Society in 1983.

According to this report as also as per the charge-sheet

submitted by the CBI Mahanand Sharma has, in fact, forged

the signatures of original members and has also forged the

signatures of many members. During the inquiry by the CBI it

was found that those members who were shown to have

resigned from the Safdarjung CGHS had denied their

signatures on the resignation letters. Therefore, the list

pertaining to the year 1999 itself was a forged and a fake list.

Page 15 15

11.In this case there is another list of members of the year

2009. This list came to the knowledge of the authorities only

when it was filed along with W.P.(C) No. 13298 of 2009 and this

list was not validated by the RCS at any point of time. This list

is not only different from the list of 1983 but also very different

from the list of 1999. New members could have been enrolled

only after the resignation of old members but intimation of

resignation of a member has to be sent to the Office of RCS.

The case of the CBI is that the resignations of most of the

members are forged. As pointed out above none of the

members of the 1983 list are shown as members in the year

1999. In this case also the address of the Society was changed

from SDA Shopping Complex to Jagriti Enclave. In this case

when the Secretary of the so-called Safdarjung CGHS moved

the RCS for approval of the new list of members on 16.12.1999,

a noting was made that the Secretary of the Society be asked to

give all the records relating to the resignations and enrollments.

It was also noted that the address of the Society was changed

more than twice in a year. No response was received from the

Society and hence, according to this report the membership list

Page 16 16

was totally fraudulent. Even with regard to the members

shown in the list of 2009, the report found various anomalies in

the same. Therefore, the Registrar refused to accept the list of

2009 and refused to recommend the name of the Safdarjung

CGHS for allotment of land. This order was challenged by the

Safdarjung CGHS by way of a writ petition and the High Court

while disposing of the writ petition held that this case was

similar to the Writ Petition (C) No. 2441 of 2011, Lords

Co-operative Group Housing Society vs. Registrar, Cooperative

Society and Ors. decided on 23.05.2011. It was argued before

the High Court that in the case of Lords CGHS the land had not

only been allotted but possession of the land had also been

taken, flats had also been constructed and they were ready for

allotment. The High Court rejected this plea on the

following grounds:-

“......We, however, find that the ratio of the said judgment is

that where such societies had been permitted to be revived,

contributions made by the members whether towards land

or cost of flat, the matter should not be re-agitated. The

verification had to be carried out by the DDA at the time of

allotment of land over which there is no dispute. The

allotment is still subsisting. The impugned order

10.01.2012 does not even note this judgment delivered by

Page 17 17

us and proceeds on the basis as if the allotments are yet to

be made. In fact the necessary recommendation has to be

made to the DDA qua the eligible persons and not that the

land allotted to the society itself stand scrapped. The

allotment of land is a function of the DDA....”

This judgment is under challenge in W.P.No.13298 of 2009.

12.Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing

for the DDA submits that the High Court fell in error in relying

upon the judgment rendered in Lords CGHS case (supra). His

submission is that the factual situation in that case was

entirely different. In Lords CGHS case (supra) not only had the

land been allotted, possession of the land had also been handed

over to the Society, construction of the building was completed

and the flats were ready. It was in these circumstances that

the Delhi High Court held that the members of the Society were

entitled to get possession of the flats. No doubt, the decision of

the Delhi High Court, in Lords CGHS case (supra) was upheld

by this Court but while upholding the judgment this Court

observed that in view of the fact that construction was complete

and flats were ready for allotment, the members of the Society

should not be denied possession of the same. Shri Ranjit

Page 18 18

Kumar has drawn our attention to the various orders passed by

this Court in different cases and a bare perusal of these orders

show that this Court did not go into the merits as to whether

the Society could have been legally revived or not, but either

disposed of the SLPs by a non-speaking order or rejected the

same on the ground that construction was complete. It is

further urged by Shri Ranjit Kumar that the revival of the

Societies was a fraudulent act and he submits that fraud

vitiates all decisions and in this regard he made reference to the

judgment of this Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State

of Maharashtra

1

, relevant portions of which read as follows:-

“9. By “fraud” is meant an intention to deceive; whether

it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself

or from ill will towards the other is immaterial. The

expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury

to the person deceived. Injury is something other than

economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether

movable or immovable or of money and it will include any

harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind,

reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or

non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver,

will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived.

Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or

advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the

deceived, the second condition is satisfied.

10. A “fraud” is an act of deliberate deception with the

design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of

1

(2005) 7 SCC 605

Page 19 19

another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss.

It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.

11. “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act.

Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct

either by letters or words, which induces the other person

or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a

response to the conduct of the former either by words or

letters. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself

amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may

also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent

misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a

man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to

believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party

makes representations, which he knows to be false, and

injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which

the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An

act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion

or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in

relation to a property would render the transaction void ab

initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a

given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is

anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted

with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the

application of any equitable doctrine including res

judicata.”

13.We have heard learned counsel for the respondents and

they have also filed their written submissions. It would be

pertinent to mention that counsel for the respondents have not

countered the submission of the learned Solicitor General that

the revival of the Societies was illegal and fraudulent. The main

submission is that the new members were validly granted

membership in the Bankmens CGHS. They are not at fault and

Page 20 20

hence they should not be made to suffer. It is also urged that

the allegation that Rs.67,38,800/- was paid out of the funds of

builders is incorrect and, in fact, this amount was paid out of

the funds of the Society.

14.In Safdarjung CGHS additional grounds have been taken

that the DDA had not, in fact, challenged the orders dated

27.02.2012 and 22.08.2012 but only after the land which was

the subject matter of dispute in Bankmens CGHS case was

illegally given to some third party, it was felt by officials of the

DDA that contempt proceedings may be initiated against them

and, therefore, appeal was filed in Safdarjung CGHS case also.

Again on merits all that has been stated is that after revival in

the year 1999, the membership is genuine and bonafide and

that the genuine members cannot be denied what is rightfully

due to them.

15.We have carefully considered the arguments of both the

sides. As pointed out by the Delhi High Court in Yogi Raj

Krishna CGHS’s case (supra) it is more than apparent that the

builder mafia was instrumental in getting the societies revived.

Page 21 21

The CBI conducted investigation on the directions of the Delhi

High Court. After investigation triable cases have been made

out against the office bearers of both Bankmens CGHS and

Safdarjung CGHS and some officials of the RCS. In Safdarjung

CGHS’s case an inquiry was conducted on the directions given

by the Delhi High Court and in that inquiry it was found that

the memberships were not genuine. But that report has been

brushed aside by the High Court, only on the ground that this

case is covered by Lords CGHS’s case. We are in agreement

with the learned Solicitor General that the facts of these cases

are totally different from the facts of the Lords CGHS’s case. In

these cases even though provisional allotment was made more

than 15 years back, yet the plot of land was never handed over

to the Bankmens CGHS, and in the case of Safdarjung CGHS

possession of land was handed over only after the intervention

of the Delhi High Court in the year 2012 and the construction

has not even started. Therefore, these two cases stand on a

totally different footing.

Page 22 22

16.As repeatedly held by this Court when an action is based

on fraud the same cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. The

revival of these Societies is mired in controversy. When we talk

of revival it would normally mean that the society is being

revived by its original members. As far as these two cases are

concerned the move for revival was started by persons who were

not even members or promoters of the original society. The

revival of societies was funded by the builders. The original

members have all vanished into thin air. There is no

explanation as to how they resigned and who accepted their

resignations. There is nothing on record to show how Rajan

Chopra, in case of Bankmens CGHS and Mahanand Sharma, in

case of Safdarjung CGHS were entitled to file the application for

revival. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that both the

Societies were put under liquidation because they could not

furnish some information to the Office of the RCS. There is not

even a plea that when the revival was done the RCS was

satisfied that the reasons for which the Societies were

liquidated no longer existed. It is also obvious that

memberships kept changing and almost all the members of

Page 23 23

these two Societies are persons who were granted membership

after the year 2003, i.e. after the cut-off date referred to in Yogi

Raj Krishna CGHS’s case. We are, therefore, clearly of the view

that the very revival of the Societies is illegal and that when the

foundation falls the edifice which has been developed on the

foundation must go.

17.The argument made in Safdarjung CGHS’s case is that

the DDA had acquiesced to the orders passed by the Delhi High

Court. This argument is without merit. The delay in filing the

petition was condoned and now the respondents cannot be

allowed to urge that the appeal is not maintainable. We may

make it clear that we have not gone into certain arguments of

the learned Solicitor General where he had referred to the

charge sheets in both the cases because we felt that we should

not make any comment that would have bearing on the

criminal trial. We further clarify that any observations made

herein have been made only with a view to decide these cases

and will have no impact on the criminal cases.

Page 24 24

18.Another argument raised is that verification of the

members is only to be done when the plots are to be allotted

and such verification is not required at the time when the land

is to be allotted to the Society. We are not at all in agreement

with this submission. If this submission is accepted, in every

case the DDA will be presented with a fait accompli and the

situation as prevailing in Lords CGHS’s case would come into

play. In a case like the present one where the very revival of the

society or the creation thereof is wholly illegal, verification of

the members must be done even at the stage before the land is

allotted to the society.

19.In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view

that the revival of the Societies was illegal. It was manipulated

by persons who had no connection with the Societies. We are

prima facie of the view that the builder mafia had a big hand in

getting the Societies revived. Hence we hold that the very

revival of the Societies is illegal and the memberships are not

genuine and hence the appeals are allowed. However, there

may be some members of the Societies who must have been

Page 25 25

duped by the promoters. Therefore, we direct the DDA to

refund the money deposited to the Societies along with interest

@10% p.a with effect from the date when the money was

deposited with the DDA. The amount be paid within 2 months

from today. The Societies shall in turn ensure that within 4

weeks thereafter the amount deposited by the members is

returned to them along with the interest aforesaid. This will

alleviate the hardship of genuine members.

20.Accordingly, Civil Appeal Nos. 6805 of 2013 and

6803-6804 of 2013 filed by the DDA are allowed and the

judgments/orders of the Delhi High Court 23.07.2012 ,

27.02.2012 & 22.08.2012 are set aside and the Writ Petition (C)

Nos. 3546, 1168 and 5109 of 2012 filed by Bankmens CGHS

and Safdarjung CGHS are dismissed with the aforesaid terms.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8627 OF 2014

21.This appeal is directed against the interim order of the

Delhi High Court whereby the High Court directed that the

membership of the Society be got verified. In view of what has

Page 26 26

been discussed above, there can be no ken of doubt that

verification of the members must be done to ensure that the

members of the society are genuine members. Hence Civil

Appeal No. 8627 of 2014 is dismissed.

………………………………… ..J.

(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

………………………………… ..J.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

New Delhi

April 17, 2017