Supreme Court Judgment: Dispute Over Plot Allocation

In a significant legal case, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a judgment on the dispute over plot allocation. The case involved a disagreement between the Disputant and the Society regarding the allotment of Plot No.2. The Court’s decision has far-reaching implications for property disputes and cooperative societies. Let’s delve into the details of this landmark ruling.


  • The Disputant alleged that Plot No.2 was illegally allotted to the Appellant.
  • The Disputant prayed for Resolution No.5 dated 25.03.1990 and the sale deed dated 25.10.1989 executed in favor of the Appellant to be set aside.
  • The Disputant claimed that the plot had been wrongly allotted to the Appellant, and that she, being a senior member, was entitled to claim Plot No.2.
  • It was asserted that the Disputant had made various deposits to the society, totaling Rs.18,355/-, from time to time, as per the allegations and statements
  • The Disputant’s husband, a depositor of the society, was mentioned in relation to several transactions and claims made by the Disputant.
  • The Society was accused of executing the sale deed in favor of the Appellant despite an interim order against making any allotments for Plot No.2.
  • The Disputant’s application for membership and allotment of shares, along with payments made, was described in detail.
  • Allegations of misappropriation of funds and illegal activities by the Secretary of the society were raised.
  • The Disputant’s attempts to claim the plot, the perceived injustices in plot allotments, and the lack of responses from the society were highlighted.
  • The Cooperative Court’s observations regarding the Disputant’s membership status and entitlements were mentioned.
  • Disputant proved payment of Rs.4,750 to the Secretary of the Society
  • Cooperative Court found evidence supporting Disputant’s claim
  • Payment made by Disputant acknowledged

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • In the meeting held on 24.06.1984, depositors expressed disinterest in two big sized plots and suggested giving them to others interested.
  • Husband of the Disputant was present in various meetings but raised no objections.
  • Disputant was not a member of the Society, hence couldn’t make choices for plot allocation.
  • Appellant was rightfully inducted as a member and allocated Plot No.2.
  • Decisions regarding membership and plot allocation were ratified in the General Body Meeting dated 25.03.1990, relating back to 18.12.1988 making the Appellant senior to the Disputant.
  • Shri Changde, an old member and ex-Secretary, presided over the meeting dated 18.2.1988.
  • Mr. Lal Das, a learned Senior Advocate, acknowledged that the Appellant was not present at the meeting, was not invited, and had not submitted an application form or deposited the required fees.
  • The Society’s records showed that an amount of Rs.4750/- received from the Disputant was credited to the Society’s account.
  • A resolution was passed by the Society on 18.12.1988 during a meeting of depositors at Jagat Hotel Nagpur.
  • The meeting attendees included several depositors, and the Secretary requested Shri Changde to proceed with the allotment of a plot.
  • Mr. Vinary Navare, a learned Senior Advocate for the Disputant, raised several points regarding the Disputant’s claim to Plot No.2, including her employment status, payment made, submission of membership application forms, and entitlement as a depositor of the Society.
  • It was noted that in the meeting dated 18.12.1988, nobody else had claimed Plot No.2, strengthening the Disputant’s claim to the plot.

Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF


  • The witness admitted to allotting Plot Nos. 1 and 2.
  • Discrepancies were highlighted regarding the payment of fees during the meeting on 18.12.88.
  • The rejection of the petitioner’s application in 1990 was deemed inconsequential.
  • The petitioner’s membership date was a point of contention.
  • There were discrepancies over the allotment of Plot No.2 to the petitioner in 1990.
  • The society’s resolution was found to be incorrect and against the record.
  • The husband and wife’s entitlement to only one plot was acknowledged.
  • The disputant was determined to be a depositor of the society.
  • The Disputant’s contributions to the society were recognized.
  • The absence of funds from the appellant prior to 18.12.88 was noted.
  • The resolution on 24.06.1984 regarding plot allocation criteria was discussed.
  • The High Court’s decision on the allotment of Plot No.2 was supported.
  • The issue of previous allotments before 18.12.88 was raised.
  • The interim order on Plot No.2 and the execution of the sale deed were in conflict.
  • The lack of payment by the appellant before 18.12.88 was acknowledged.
  • The High Court reiterated the illegality of Plot No.2’s allotment to the petitioner.
  • The Disputant was confirmed as a Depositor of the Society and entitled to attend the meeting on 18.12.1988.
  • She had submitted the necessary application for membership and paid the required fees on the same day.
  • The Disputant had selected Plot No.2, which no one else had chosen at that time.
  • The High Court’s conclusions were not addressed as the Disputant’s Special Leave to Appeal petition was already disposed of by the Court on 15.01.2016.

Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration


  • The Disputant challenged the judgment and order passed by the High Court and filed a Special Leave Petition.
  • The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2016.
  • The Supreme Court observed that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s order.
  • The Disputant was advised to approach the High Court if aggrieved by the society’s order.
  • The Court directed that concerned authorities should consider the High Court’s directions in their actions.
  • The allotment of plots should be limited to those who had opted by 18.12.1988 and had not accepted any other allotment.


Case Number: C.A. No.-007652-007653 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *