Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) seeking to reopen its earlier order of 28 May 2024, which had directed regularisation of flats allotted through a self-draw by Seema Cooperative Group Housing Society on 25 December 2005. The Court held that the review petition was grossly delayed, beyond the permissible scope of review under Order XLVII CPC, and lacked any substantive grounds. It reiterated that “a review petition cannot be permitted to become an appeal in disguise” and warned RCS that failure to comply within two months would invite exemplary costs and contempt proceedings.
Facts
The petitioners had been allotted flats in 2005 through a self-draw conducted by Seema CGHS after some members defaulted on dues and resigned. Although possession was handed over in 2006, RCS never regularised their allotments despite repeated proposals, notings in 2016 verifying eligibility, and a GNCTD-approved policy dated 24 November 2011 that permitted such regularisation.
The petitioners approached the High Court, which on 28 May 2024 directed RCS to regularise their allotments within six months. However, instead of complying, RCS filed a review petition after 423 days, citing lack of jurisdiction and alleged irregularities. Meanwhile, the petitioners had also filed a contempt case for non-compliance.
Issues
- Whether RCS had jurisdiction to regularise self-draws conducted prior to 2010 in light of the 2011 policy circular and Lieutenant Governor’s approval.
- Whether alleged discrepancies in one petitioner’s membership approval vitiated the entire allotment.
- Whether the review petition could reopen issues already decided on merits.
- Whether delay of 423 days could be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause.
Petitioner’s Arguments (RCS)
RCS argued that it lacked power to regularise the 2005 self-draw since it violated Section 77 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, and Rule 90 of the 2007 Rules. It contended that the Lieutenant Governor’s 2011 notification approved only 26 societies, and Seema CGHS was not among them.
It also claimed discrepancies in Petitioner No. 3’s membership dates, suggesting ante-dating. RCS insisted that earlier notings by Assistant Registrars recommending regularisation had no binding effect, since final approval was never granted. It sought review on the ground that the High Court’s earlier order left parties’ rights open.
Respondent’s Arguments (Allottees)
The petitioners countered that the review petition was barred by limitation and raised merits beyond the limited scope of review. They highlighted that the 2011 policy circular, read with the Lieutenant Governor’s decision of 20 September 2011, empowered RCS to regularise all pre-2010 self-draws subject to verification.
They stressed that their entitlement had been verified by RCS in February–March 2016, and they had been living in the flats since 2006 without any rival claims. The belated challenge to Petitioner No. 3’s membership was termed mala fide and unsupported by documents. They argued that senior citizen allottees had suffered injustice for nearly two decades due to RCS’s inaction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1, reiterating that review jurisdiction is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering new evidence unavailable despite due diligence. It relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025) and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013), which emphasized that review cannot substitute an appeal.
On jurisdiction, the Court referred to the 2011 LG decision and RCS’s policy circular, holding that RCS was empowered to regularise pre-2010 self-draws. It found that the Assistant Registrar’s 2016 notings had already verified the petitioners’ eligibility.
The Court dismissed the discrepancy in Petitioner No. 3’s membership as nominal and explained by records, rejecting RCS’s belated attempt to question it after 21 years.
Precedent Analysis
- Rajeev Saxena v. RCS (Delhi HC, 2025): Division Bench held that RCS could regularise self-draws held before 2010. Applied here to show binding precedent.
- Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927): Summarised limits of review jurisdiction; cited to reject RCS’s attempt to reopen merits.
- Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320: Clarified grounds for review — new evidence, apparent error, or analogous reasons. Referred to outline permissible scope.
These authorities were decisive in dismissing the review as barred and lacking merit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench held that RCS’s plea of lack of jurisdiction ignored both the LG’s 2011 decision and its own 2011 policy circular. It observed that RCS had already complied with the Rajeev Saxena ruling in another case, making its stance here inconsistent.
The Court found no new evidence or error apparent on record. It noted that objections to Petitioner No. 3’s membership were raised only in 2025 without affidavit support, clearly as an afterthought. The review petition, filed after 423 days, was also hopelessly barred by limitation.
The judges condemned RCS’s apathy, remarking that senior citizen petitioners had been waiting since 2005 for regularisation, and bureaucratic excuses could not defeat their rights. The Court directed compliance within two months, failing which costs and contempt proceedings would follow.
Conclusion
The review petition filed by RCS was dismissed with costs for being grossly delayed and devoid of legal grounds. The Court reaffirmed its earlier direction to regularise the petitioners’ flats and warned of contempt if compliance was not reported within two months.
This ruling underscores that review jurisdiction is narrow, that bureaucratic inaction cannot be used to deny genuine rights, and that senior citizens’ long-pending entitlements must be respected.
Implications
The judgment has significant implications for cooperative housing society disputes. It confirms that RCS has jurisdiction to regularise pre-2010 self-draws and cannot evade responsibility by citing technicalities. It also strengthens the principle that review petitions cannot serve as appeals in disguise. Importantly, it sends a message that courts will protect flat allottees, particularly vulnerable groups like senior citizens, from prolonged harassment due to bureaucratic delays.
FAQs
1. Can RCS deny regularisation of self-draws held before 2010?
No. The High Court held that the 2011 LG decision and policy circular empowered RCS to regularise such draws, subject to verification.
2. What is the scope of review under Order XLVII CPC?
Review is limited to correcting errors apparent on record, considering new evidence not earlier available, or preventing miscarriage of justice. It cannot reopen merits.
3. What happens if RCS does not comply with this order?
The Court directed compliance within two months and warned that failure would invite exemplary costs and contempt proceedings.
