W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 1 of 16

$~57 & 58

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 16

th

April, 2026

Uploaded on: 18

th

April, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & CM APPL. 28525/2024

PANNA LAL KAPOOR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVE PARVEEN KAPOOR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Mr. Chirag

Goyal, Ms. Manika Mudgal, Advs.

with petitioner in person.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.

~58

+ W.P.(C) 6845/2024 & CM APPL. 28530/2024

PAWAN KAPOOR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Mr. Chirag

Goyal, Ms. Manika Mudgal, Advs.

with Petitioner in person.

versus

REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are two petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution

of India, inter alia, challenging the orders dated 18th October, 2011 passed

by the Financial Commissioner in Case No. 412/2010-CA and Case No.

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 2 of 16

412/2010-CA in the Revision petitions filed by the Petitioners under Section

80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act 1972. Challenge is also to the order

dated 9

th

January, 2024 also passed by the Financial Commissioner in Review

petition being Case No. 102/2019 and Case No. 103/2019 filed under Section

115 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003.

3. The brief background of the present petitions is that there were three

brothers - Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor, Mr. Panna Lal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar

Lal Kapoor.

4. Two brothers viz., Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal

Kapoor were members of the Respondent No. 2-Arawali Cooperative

Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Society’). The membership was obtained

by Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor in the year 1996.

In 2001, Mr. Kewal Kishan Kapoor transferred his membership to his brother

namely, Mr. Panna Lal Kapoor i.e., the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6843/2024. Mr.

Manohar Lal Kapoor transferred his membership to his son namely, Mr.

Pawan Kapoor i.e., the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6845/2024.

5. Mr. Panna Lal Kapoor was allotted flat bearing No. A-4 in the Society

and Mr. Pawan Kapoor was allotted flat bearing No. H-101 in the Society. A

complaint was filed by Respondent No. 3 – Mr. Ashok Aggarwal that the

allotment of the Petitioners is liable to be cancelled on the ground that on the

date when the Petitioners’ predecessors, i.e., Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr.

Manohar Lal Kapoor obtained the membership of the Society, they and their

wives were co-owners of property bearing no. BM – 44, Shalimar Bagh, West,

Delhi. Therefore, the disqualification under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative

Societies Rules, 1973 was attracted. In view thereof, the allotment deserves

to be cancelled as per the complainant.

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 3 of 16

6. Pursuant to the said complaint, Show Cause Notices (hereinafter,

‘SCNs’) were issued to both the Petitioners on 12

th

November, 2002 and the

replies to the said SCNs were filed by the Petitioners respectively.

7. The Registrar Cooperative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’) passed an

order on 18

th

April, 2004 and 18th May, 2004 holding that the membership of

Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor was liable to be cancelled.

The findings of the RCS were that Mr. Kewal Kapoor, Mr. Manohar Lal

Kapoor and their wives owned half share in the property, therefore the

proviso to Sub-Rule of 25(1)(i)(c) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules,

1973 would not be applicable. The findings of the RCS in the order dated 18th

April, 2004 in W.P.(C) 6843/2024 are set out below:

“In the instant case the transferor Mr. Kewal

Krishan Kapoor was holding property No. BM 44,

Shalimar Bagh (WEST) measuring 207 sq metres in

his own name and in the name of his wife Smt

Promila Kapoor to the extent of ½ consolidated

share (103.5 sq mtrs) at the time of transfer of

membership in the name of the respondent Shri

Panna Lal Kapoor and got the membership

transferred by furnishing false affidavits supported

by indemnity bonds to keep the lessor fully

indemnified against such transfer. The fact remains

that the transferor and his spouse were co-owners

and in possession of ½ share of Property No BM-44

Shalimar Bagh (West), Delhi measuring 207 sq mts

at the time of transfer of membership in the name of

Respondent on the basis of General Power of

Attorney and agreement for sale since July, 2985

and he was at liberty to get the conveyance deed

executed at this convenience which he preferred to

get done only on 16

th

May, 2000. The respondent

has tried to create a cloud over the illegal

membership of Mr Kewal Krishan Kapoor by

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 4 of 16

getting the same transferred in his name in

connivance of each other with ulterior motives and

dishonest intentions. The respondent is also not

covered by the proviso to Sub-rule 25(1) (i) (c) as

the consolidate share of the transferor jointly with

his wife was more than the permissible limit of 66.72

sq metres. Thus the plea taken by the respondent is

otherwise dishonest to his own knowledge and

directly in contravention to the records placed in file

and is thus liable to be rejected.

I have gone through the records available on file

heard the oral as well as written submissions of both

the parties. Rule 25 (1) (c) (i) of the D.C.S Rules,

1973 prohibits a person from becoming a member

of a housing society who owns a residential house

or a plot of land for the construction of residential

house either in his own name or in the name of

his/her spouse or in the name of any of his

dependent children, on lease hold or freehold basis

or on power of attorney or on agreement for sale,

provided further that the said disqualification of

membership as laid down in sub-rule (1) (c) (i) of

Rule 25 shall not be applicable in case of co-shares

of property whose share is less than 66.72 sq metres

of land. The respondent is also not covered by the

proviso to Sub-rule 25(1)(i)(c) as the consolidate

share of the transferor jointly with his wife was

more than the permissible limit of 66.72 sq metres.

Thus the plea taken by the respondent is otherwise

dishonest to his own knowledge and directly in

contravention to the records placed in file and is

thus liable to be rejected.

Sub-rule of Rule 25 also provides that

notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or

the bye-laws of the co-operative society, if a member

becomes, or has already become, subject to any

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 5 of 16

disqualifications specified in sub-rule (1), he shall

be deemed to have ceased to be a member from the

date when disqualifications were incurred. In the

instant case the original allotee Shri Kewal

Krishan Kapoor was disqualified to remain as

member of the society under Rule 25 of the DCS

Rules, 1973 at the time of transfer of membership

in the name of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor and a such

the membership of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor is liable

to be ceased.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances

of the case I. N. Diwakar, Registrar, Co-operative

Societies, GNCTD of Delhi, hereby cease the

membership of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor having

membership No. 200 in Arawali Co-operative

Group Housing Society Ltd. u/r 25 of D.C.S Rules,

1973 with immediate effect and the society is

directed to take necessary steps for the compliance

of this order. ”

8. The findings of the RCS in the order dated 18th May, 2004 in W.P.(C)

6845/2024 are set out below:

“ In the instant case the transferor Shri Manohar

Lal Kapoor was holding property No. BM-44

Shalimar Bagh (West) measuring 207 sq meters in

his own name and in the name of his wife Smt. Neena

Kapoor to the extent of ½

consolidated share (103.5 sq meters) at the time of

transfer of membership in the name of the

respondent Shri Pawan Kapoor and got the

membership transferred by furnishing false

affidavits supported by indemnity bonds to keep the

lessor fully indemnìfied against such transfer. The

fact remains that the transferor and his spouse were

co-owners and in possession of Property No. BM-

44, Shalimar Bagh (West), Delhi measuring 207 sq.

mts of the time of transfer of membership in the

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 6 of 16

name of Respondent on the basis of General Power

of Attorney and agreement for sale since July, 1985

and were at liberty to get the conveyance deed

executed of their convenience which they preferred

to get done only on 16th May, 2000. The respondent

has tried to create a cloud over the illegal

membership of Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor by gett¡ng

the same transferred in his name in connivance of

each other with ulterior motives and dishonest

intentions. The respondent is also not covered by

the proviso to Sub-rule 25 (1) (i) (c) as the

consolidate share of the transferor jointly with his

wife was more than the permissible limìt of 66.72

sq. meters. Thus the plea taken by the respondent

is otherwise dishonest to his own knowledge and

directly in contravention to the records placed in

file and is thus liable to be rejected.

I have gone through the records available on file,

heard the oral as well as written submissions of both

the parties. Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of Delhi cooperative

Societies Rules, 1973 prohibits a person from

becoming a member of a housing society, who owns

a residential house or a plot of land for the

construction of a residential house either in his own

name or in the name of his/her spouse or in the name

of any of his dependent children, on lease hold or

freehold basis or on power of attorney or an

agreement for same, provided further that the said

disqualification of membership as laid down in sub-

rule(1)(c)(i) of Rule 25 shall not be applicable in

case of co-shares of property whose share is less

than 66.72 sq. metres of land. The respondent is

also not covered by the proviso to Sub-Rule

25(1)(i)(c) as the consolidate share of the

transferor jointly with his wife was more than

permissible limit of 66.72 sq. meters. Thus the plea

taken by the respondent is otherwise dishonest to

his own knowledge and directly in contravention to

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 7 of 16

the records placed in file and is thus liable to be

rejected.

Sub-rule 2 of Rule 25 also provides that

notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or

the byelaws of the co-operative society, if a member

becomes, or has already become, subject to any

disqualifications specified in sub-rule(1), he shall be

deemed to have ceased to be a member from the date

when disqualifications were incurred. In the instant

case the original allottee Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor

was disqualìfied to remain as member of the society

under Rule 25 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules,

1973 at the time of transfer of membership in the

name of Shri Pawan Kapoor and as such the

membership of Shri Pawan Kapoor is liable to be

ceased.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances

of the case I, N. Diwakar, Registrar, Co-operative

Societies, GNCT of Delhi, hereby cease the

membership of Shri Pawan Kapoor having

membership No.57, in Arawali Co-operative Group

Housing Society Ltd. u/r 25 of Delhi Cooperative

Societies Rules, 1973 with immediate effect and the

society is directed to take necessary steps for the

compliance of this order.

Announced.”

9. These orders were challenged by the Petitioners before the Financial

Commissioner, who also came to the same conclusion and held that it has not

been established that Smt. Parmila Kapoor, wife of Shri. Kewal Kapoor and

Smt. Neena Kapoor, wife of Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor had the resources to

purchase one-fourth of the property i.e., BM – 44, Shalimar Bagh, West, Delhi

in their own right. The finding therefore, was that Smt. Parmila Kapoor-

Shri.Kewal Kapoor and Smt. Neena Kapoor- Shri Manohar Lal Kapoor

together owned more than half the property and hence, the disqualification

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 8 of 16

was attracted. A review petition was filed in respect of the said orders dated

18

th

October, 2011 which was also dismissed on 9

th

January, 2024.

10. The submission of Mr. Malhotra, ld. Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners is that the disqualification would not be attracted as firstly, the

one-fourth share of the house in Shalimar Bagh was duly reflected in the

Wealth Tax returns of the wives and secondly, in any case the area of the said

one-fourth share would be less than 66.72 sq. metre.

11. Further it is submitted that the Respondent No. 3 was a chronic litigant

who had filed baseless complaints against the Petitioners. It is also argued that

since inception, the Petitioners have been in possession of the aforementioned

flats.

12. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench Court

in R.K. Aggarwal v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies,

MANU/DE/1116/2023 wherein the Court has held that the phrase ‘in the

name of’ has been interpreted in the decision in Alimuddin v. The Registrar

of Cooperative Societies & Ors., MANU/DE/1001/1996 and for the said

disqualification to be attracted, the property has to be in the name of the

allottee itself. Ld. Counsel submits that even if the property is held to be

benami in the name of the wife, the disqualification would not be attracted.

13. As against Mr. Malhotra’s submissions, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, ld.

Counsel for the RCS submits that on facts, the Financial Commissioner had

come to the conclusion that the source of funds was not shown and in fact, the

Financial Commissioner has analysed the record and arrived at the factual

finding that the property belonged to Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar

Lal Kapoor and not to their wives. Thus, according to Mr. Sharma, the

disqualification is attracted and the impugned orders do not deserve to the be

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 9 of 16

interfered with.

14. The Court has considered the matter. Firstly, it is relevant to point out

that the allegation in this case is that the original membership of Mr. Kewal

Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor deserves to be cancelled. The

membership of Mr. Kewal Kapoor was transferred to his brother i.e., Panna

Lal Kapoor and the membership of Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor was transferred

to his son i.e., Pawan Kapoor. The flats were allotted in 2001 and for the last

25 years, the flats have been in their possession. The allegation that the

disqualification was attracted by the original member has been considered in

this context inasmuch as the present members are not attracted with the same

disqualification.

15. The Financial Commissioner has considered the Income Tax and

Wealth Tax returns but has held that it has not been proved on record that

Smt. Parmila Kapoor and Smt. Neena Kapoor were independent legal entities.

The property in Shalimar Bagh was purchased in 1985. The production of the

bank statements, etc. could not have been expected as almost 20 years had

passed. The Wealth Tax returns which have been placed on record clearly

reflect that one-fourth of the property is standing in the name of Smt. Parmila

Kapoor and Smt. Neena Kapoor. Despite the returns having demonstrated to

have been in the names of the wives, the conclusion on facts that the amount

for the same could have been paid by Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar

Lal Kapoor would be in the realm of speculation. There is no evidence to the

effect that either Smt. Parmila Kapoor or Smt. Neena Kapoor did not have

the resources or that they did not make the payment for the one-fourth share.

16. The Court has to go by the Income Tax returns and Wealth Tax returns

which are on record which clearly shows that the Smt. Parmila Kapoor and

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 10 of 16

Smt. Neena Kapoor owned one-fourth share of the Shalimar Bagh property

respectively. Moreover, even insofar as the disqualification itself is

concerned, there is an exemption in the Proviso to Rule 25 (1) C of the Delhi

Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. The said proviso reads as under :

“Rule 25:

Disqualification of membership

(1) No person shall be eligible for admission as a

member of a cooperative Society if he……

(a) ……………

(b)………………

(c) In the case of membership of a Housing Society:

(i) He owns a residential house or a plot of

land for the construction of a residential

house in any of the approved or unapproved

colonies or other localities in the Union

Territory of Delhi in his own name or in the

name of his spouse or any of his dependent

children on lease hold or free hold basis:

provided, disqualification as laid down in

Sub-rule (1)(c)(i) shall not be applicable in

case of persons who are only cosharers of

joint ancestral properties in congested

localities (Slum Area) whose share is less

than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) of land.”

17. A perusal of the above would show that if the share of the property is

less than 66.72 sq. metre, the disqualification would not be attracted. The

share of Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor is less than 66.72

sq. metres in the Shalimar Bagh property. Thus, on both these grounds, the

original membership of Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr. Manohar Lal Kapoor is

not in jeopardy.

18. The Proviso thus supports the case of Mr. Kewal Kapoor and Mr.

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 11 of 16

Manohar Lal Kapoor and therefore, the disqualification is meritless. This

Court in various other decisions has taken a view that the property has to be

in the name of the person who has applied for membership It was held in R.K.

Aggarwal (Supra), by the Ld. Division Bench as under:

“15. Reference may next be made to J.K. Gupta,

Dr. Vs. Registrar of Coop. Societies & Ors., 2010

(116) DRJ 131 (DB). In the aforesaid case, a

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India was preferred for quashing of order dated

15.05.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner,

Delhi upholding the order dated 05.07.2001 passed

by respondent No.1 Registrar of Cooperative

Societies ceasing the membership of petitioner with

respondent No.2 Society. The petitioner therein was

enrolled as a member of respondent No.2 Society

vide decision of Managing Committee dated

25.10.1990. A show-cause notice was issued to the

petitioner alleging that his wife owned a property at

Multani Dhanda, New Delhi which was a

disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c) of DCS Rules,

1973. It was claimed by the petitioner that the same

was purchased by his wife from her own funds in her

own name and the said property was commercial

and of small size and as such disqualification under

Rule 25 was not attracted. However, the respondent

ceased the membership of the petitioner vide order

dated 05.07.2001, against which a revision was

preferred under Section 80 of the DCS Act, 1972

before the Financial Commissioner on 23.08.2001.

The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision

petition vide order dated 17.08.2007 upholding the

finding of RCS.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that

membership of the petitioner could not have been

ceased under Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of the Rules, had the

property at Multani Dhanda been owned by the

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 12 of 16

petitioner in his own name or in the name of his wife.

It was further contended that the phrase “in the

name of” as stated in Rule 25(1)(c)(i) means

ownership must be of the member though it may

stand benami in the name of his wife or child and

reliance was placed upon Alimuddin Vs. The

Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors., C.W.P.

No.5551/1993 reported in 63 (1996) Delhi Law

Times 655 (DB).

The said contentions were opposed on behalf of the

Respondent contending that bye-laws of the Society

did not permit the Petitioner to become its member.

The observations of the Division Bench in para 6 &

7 may be beneficially reproduced:

“6. We have considered the submissions

made and perused the record. The relevant

portion of Rule 25 of the Rules under which

petitioner is sought to be disqualified is

reproduced as under:- “Rule 25:

Disqualification of membership

(1) No person shall be eligible for

admission as a member of a cooperative

Society if he……

(a) ……………

(b)………………

(c) In the case of membership of a Housing

Society:

(i) He owns a residential house or a plot of

land for the construction of a residential

house in any of the approved or

unapproved colonies or other localities in

the Union Territory of Delhi in his own

name or in the name of his spouse or any of

his dependent children on lease hold or free

hold basis:

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 13 of 16

provided, disqualification as laid down in

Sub-rule (1)(c)(i) shall not be applicable in

case of persons who are only cosharers of

joint ancestral properties in congested

localities (Slum Area) whose share is less

than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) of

land.”

Rule 25(1)(c)(i) has been interpreted in three

decisions of this court,

i.e., O.P. Sethi v Lt. Governor

MANU/DE/0678/1991 : 45(1991)DLT 426,

Navjeevan Co-operative House Building Society Ltd

v Delhi Cooperative Tribunal : CWP 3150/1985

decided on 10.07.1987 and Shri Sita Ram Jain v

Registrar of Co-operative Societies : CWP

3203/1992 decided on 15.11.1995.

Relying on the aforesaid judgments, a Division

Bench of this court in Alimuddin’s case (supra)

observed as under:-

“The view taken by this Court has been that to

attract the applicability of Rule 25(1)(c)(i), the

member of the Society must own a residential

house or a plot of land for the construction of a

house in his own name or in the name of his

spouse or a dependent child. The phrase “in the

name of” has been interpreted to mean the

ownership must be of the member though it may

stand Benami in the name of the wife or a child.”

We have also followed the same view in two

cases decided by us recently which are as

under:-

(i) Jagdish Chander v Lt Governor and Ors,

W.P.(C) No. 1646/1995 decided on

22.07.2009 and,

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 14 of 16

(ii) Krishan Kumar Sachan v The Lt

Governor and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 417/1995

decided on 10.08.2009.

7. In the present case, the membership of the

petitioner has been ceased by respondent no. 1

by holding that property bearing no. 8315,

Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi is held

by petitioner as “Benami” and therefore the

disqualification as stated in Rule 25(1)(c)(i) is

attracted in the present case. The said finding

is also upheld by the Financial Commissioner,

Delhi vide impugned order dated 15.05.2008.

It may be mentioned that the petitioner has

throughout contended before the respondent

no. 1 and Financial Commissioner as well as

stated in reply to the show cause notice that the

said property is in the name of his wife who has

purchased it from her own funds. There is an

affidavit of the petitioner and his wife before

the respondent no. 1 in this regard. Petitioner

has also categorically stated in the affidavit

that his wife is the owner of the same and she

has purchased it from her own resources.

Petitioner has also placed on record Income

Tax Returns of his wife to substantiate the

same. Petitioner has also placed on record

material to show that the said property is

assessed in the name of his wife and in the

records of the municipal authorities, the same

is mutated in her name. “Agreement to sell” of

the property in question is in the name of his

wife. But none of these aspects have been

considered by the respondent no. 1 or by the

Financial Commissioner. The other contention

of petitioner is that said property is commercial

in nature and, in any event, provisions of Rule

25 of the Rules are not attracted in the present

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 15 of 16

case. In support of his contention, petitioner

has relied upon notice issued by the DDA to the

previous owner of the property under Section

7(3) of Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorized Occupant) Act. The said notice

shows that property is commercial in nature.

There is also no finding on aforesaid

contentions of petitioner – i.e., about nature of

property i.e. whether the same is

residential/commercial and as regards the

funds as to who had purchased it. The

contention that the finding about size of the

property is not being given by respondent no. 1

and Financial Commissioner is immaterial in

as much as it is not the stand of petitioner that

property in question is coming as a share of

joint ancestral property. We have perused the

“Agreement to Sell” in respect of property in

question. The same shows that property is a

“house”. Even considering the property in

question to be residential, the finding given in

the impugned order that same is held by the

petitioner as “Benami is not based on any

material on record. Rather, evidence on record

is to the contrary. The same shows property in

question is purchased by the petitioner’s wife

out of her own funds and the same stands in her

own name. The present case is fully covered by

the judgment in Alimuddin’s case (supra). It

may also be mentioned that proceedings have

been initiated against petitioner for cessation

of membership on the ground of ownership of

house in the name of his wife in her own

capacity. The respondents were not justified in

doing so. In view of the facts and circumstances

of the case, we are of the view that

disqualification as held in the impugned order

under Rule 25 of the Rules is not attracted in

W.P.(C) 6843/2024 & W.P.(C) 6845/2024 Page 16 of 16

the present case…”

In view of above, it was held that the petitioner did

not incur any disqualification under Rule

25(1)(c)(i). The orders passed by the FC and RCS

were accordingly set aside.”

19. Following the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the

disqualification is not attracted even in the present case. Accordingly, the

orders of the Financial Commissioner dated 18th October, 2011 and 9

th

January, 2024 and the orders of the RCS dated 18th April, 2004 and 18th May,

2004 are set aside.

20. The Society has also not filed any reply in the present case. The

allotment in favour of Shri Panna Lal Kapoor and Shri Pawan Kapoor shall

now proceed forward.

21. Accordingly, subject to the Petitioners having cleared all the

maintenance and other charges payable to the Society, let the Society

recommend the name of the Petitioners to the Delhi Development Authority

(hereinafter, ‘DDA’) for the allotment of the flats in favour of the Petitioners.

22. The Petitioners are also free to apply to the DDA for conversion from

the lease hold to free hold, if so advised.

23. The petitions are allowed in above terms. Pending applications, if any,

are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

MADHU JAIN

JUDGE

APRIL 16, 2026/ys/ck