Janak Kumari Gandhi & Ors. v. Registrar Co-operative Society & Ors.

8.7. However, the then Secretary-cum-RCS on 03.03.2016 objected to the said proposal and enquired whether the Respondent No. 4 Society is part of 26 societies that had gone to High Court. The relevant noting reads as “is the society part of 26 societies that had gone to HC”.

8.8. The proposal for regularization was re-submitted on 30.03.2016 by the then AR to the Deputy Registrar stating that the Respondent No. 4 Society is a society ‘other than’ the 26 self-draw societies and each member has to pay a penalty of Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 20000/- as per the category of flat; but the said proposal never reached to any conclusion and there was no approval at all of the Competent Authority.

8.9. The Petitioner No. 1 vide letter dated 13.12.2017 had submitted that fifteen (15) members including the Petitioner No. 1 are sufferers, who are unable to avail the facility of conversion of their flats to freehold, as their flats have not been regularized by the Respondent No. 1/RCS and the Respondent No. 3/DDA. The said letter was put up again before the Competent Authority for order and directions. However, the then Deputy to be followed in similar cases.

8.10. The matter was again re-submitted to the Policy branch to intimate about the latest position on the policy on the societies who have conducted self-draw excluding those 26 societies [which also conducted self-draw] and got one-time exemption from Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor (‘LG’) vide notification dated 17.10.2011.

8.11. The Assistant Registrar (Policy) intimated that the file related to regularization of the self-draw conducted by the societies themselves [excluding 26 self-draw societies] is under submission before the Chief Secretary. In December, 2017, as per the directions of the Respondent NO. 1/RCS the matter was again proposed to be submitted to AR (Policy) seeking policy on regularization of self-draw conducted by the societies themselves, but no decision was taken.

8.12. In the written submissions[7] dated 10.09.2025 filed by the Respondent No. 1/RCS it is averred that the Petitioner No. 3 as per the Respondent No. 4 Society’s record applied for membership on 16.07.2024, while her membership was approved on 11.07.2024 itself. It is averred that this At paragraph 15 discrepancy shows that the approval is ante-dated and goes to the root of the matter [pertinently no such plea has been raised in the review petition].

9. In this background, Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/RCS stated that therefore, the reliance placed by the Petitioners in the captioned writ petition on the office noting(s) dated 26.02.2016 and 30.03.2016 does not create any right in favour of the Petitioners, as these were the proposals of the Assistant Registrar which were not approved by the Competent Authority.

9.1. He states that the Respondent No. 1/RCS has no power to regularise self-draw of allotment dated 25.12.2005 as the same is in violation of Section 77 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (‘DCS Act, 2003’) and Rule 90 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 (‘DCS Rules, 2007’).

9.2. He states that vide notification dated 17.10.2011, the Hon’ble LG had approved the self-draws conducted by twenty-six (26) societies themselves, as a one-time exemption and Seema CGHS/Respondent No. 4 Society is not one of those 26 societies.

9.3. He states therefore the direction of regularization issued in the order dated 28.05.2024 cannot be complied by Respondent No. 1/RCS. Facts in response by the Petitioners

10. In response, Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel for Petitioners has challenged the maintainability of the review petition on the grounds of limitation as well as the fact that pleas on merits are beyond the scope of review. On merits of the pleas raised by Respondent No. 1/RCS, the Petitioner has responded as under:

10.1. The Respondent No. 4/Society vide letter dated 03.06.2005 recommended the names of the Petitioners along with ten (10) other members for draw of lots for allotment of the remaining 15 flats.

10.2. Respondent No. 4 Society carried out a self-draw of the flats on 25.12.2005 and the possession of the flats was handed over to the Petitioners in 2006. The Petitioners have been residing in their respective flats since then.

10.3. Respondent No. 1/RCS on 24.11.2011 came out with a policy[8] after the approval of Government of NCT of Delhi (‘GNCTD’), applicable to all self-draw allottees of various societies, which allowed them to apply through the respective society for regularisation; subject to verification of allotment and entitlement.

10.4. The Respondent No. 1/RCS vide letter dated 15.10.2015 sought documents for the fifteen (15) remaining allotees of the Respondent No. 4 Society, to process the regularisation of membership and allotment.

10.5. The Petitioners entitlement was duly verified by the office of the Respondent No. 1/RCS as is evident from the noting(s)9 dated 26.02.2016, 29.02.2016 and 30.03.2016.

10.6. The Petitioners were entitled to regularisation of allotment of their respective flats as per the policy dated 24.11.2011 and since their entitlement stood verified in 2016. The Respondent No. 1/RCS was obliged to process the said applications in accordance with law.

10.7. The Petitioners wrote several follow-up letters to Respondent NO. 1/RCS between 2016 and 2024; however, the Respondent No. 1/RCS failed Filed as Annexure P-7 along with the writ petition. Filed as Annexure P-13 along with the writ petition. to respond to the said communications. It was in these facts, that the Petitioners approached this Court by way of the captioned writ petition.

10.8. The review petition fails to give any reasons or justification for not processing the request for regularization of the Petitioners as per the policy after the verification have been undertaken by the AR on 30.03.2016.

10.9. The Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are senior citizens aged about 74 to 90 years except the Petitioner No. 2 who is son of a deceased allotee. Analysis and Findings

11. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

12. The noting dated 26.02.201610 of the Assistant Registrar to Respondent No. 1/RCS records that the Respondent No. 4 Society has submitted all the requisite documents in respect of the five (5) Petitioners and after verification of records all the five (5) members have been found eligible. The noting also records that all formalities of documentation are complete and genuineness of the allottees has been verified. The noting also refers to the policy dated 24.11.2011 pertaining to regularisation of selfdraws by the Society. The copy of the said noting dated 26.02.2016 is reproduced as under: - Filed as Annexure P-13 along with the writ petition.

13. The policy dated 24.11.2011 issued by Respondent No. 1/RCS with the consent of GNCTD for regularisation of self-draw of flats (other than the

14. The Respondent No. 1/RCS in its review petition, written submissions and oral arguments has not disputed the policy dated 24.11.2011. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an identical issue pertaining to self-draw by Society in Sh. Rajeev Saxena and Others v. by its judgment dated 16.05.2025 took note of the then Hon’ble LG’s decision dated 20.09.2011 qua approval of self-draw of lots held before 2010 by Societies (other than the 26 Societies). The relevant para of the said judgment reproducing the decision dated 20.09.2011 of the Hon’ble LG reads as under: -

5. On 31st March, 2005, the Housing Society informed the RCS of the self draw of lots and an approval of the same was sought. It is seen that since 2005 continuously, the RCS raised queries after queries, however, the approval was not given. In the meantime, there were various others societies who had also conducted the draw of flats by themselves without the approval of the RCS. Thereafter, on 20th September, 2011 Mr. Tejendra Khanna, the then Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi (hereinafter “the LG”) had taken a decision qua approval of the said self conducted draw of lots, in the following terms: - (Emphasis Supplied) 2025:DHC:4024-DB

15. The Hon’ble LG’s decision dated 20.09.2011 and Respondent NO. 1/RCS’s policy dated 24.11.2011 shows that RCS was duly empowered to consider regularization of self-draw conducted by the Societies before 2010.

16. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/RCS that while deciding the captioned writ petition, it was not granted sufficient opportunity, cannot be accepted at this stage; it was always open for the said Respondent/Review Petitioner to seek time at the relevant stage. The conduct of the Respondent No. 1/RCS rather demonstrates that it has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and has accepted the order dated 28.04.2025. It is only by way of an afterthought the Respondent No. 1/RCS has come before this Court by generating the grounds in support of its prayer for review, which has no legal basis and same shall be discussed here in before in addition to the aforesaid factual matrix. Perhaps the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent No. 1/RCS at the time of passing of the order under review has prompted this Court to pass the short order, however, it is only upon the present review petition, this Court is required to record the detailed reasons justifying its earlier views so as to deal with the contentions raised in support of prayer for review of the order.

17. In this review petition, there is no challenge to the eligibility of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 as recorded in the noting dated 26.02.2016 except for raising the plea that the self-draw dated 25.12.2005 conducted by Respondent No. 4 Society is in contravention of Section 77 of the DCS Act, 2003 and Rule 90 of the DCS Rules, 2007.

18. In the written submissions dated 10.09.2025 filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/RCS, a belated challenge is sought to be raised to the eligibility of Petitioner No. 3 for the first time. Though, there is no dispute to the eligibility of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

19. There is no dispute that the Petitioners are residing in the flats since 2006 and there is no dispute within the remaining members of the Respondent No. 4 Society with respect to the entitlement of the Petitioners. Pertinently, there are no rival claims by any third-party for the flats allotted to the Petitioners.

20. In the aforenoted facts, the only defence raised by the Respondent NO. 1/RCS on merits is that the RCS has no power to regularise the self-draw of flats conducted by the Respondent No. 4 Society itself on 25.12.2005 in favour of the Petitioners in violation of Section 77 DCS Act, 2003 and Rule 90 of the DCS Rules, 2007.

21. In light of the decision of the LG dated 20.09.2011 noted in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajeev Saxena (supra) and the policy circular dated 24.11.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 1/RCS; this Court is of the considered opinion that the Respondent No. 1/RCS has requisite jurisdiction to regularise the self-draw of allotment conducted by the Respondent No. 4 Society on 25.12.2005, as it was held prior to 2010.

22. The Respondent No. 1/RCS by its policy circular dated 24.11.2011 itself invited applications from the societies for regularisation subject to payment of penalty stated therein. The concerned Assistant Registrar to the RCS by its noting dated 26.02.2016 verified the genuineness and entitlement of the Petitioners herein and recommended that their allotment is in consonance with the circular dated 24.11.2011.

23. The contention of the Respondent No. 1/RCS that relaxation was granted by Hon’ble LG only limited to 26 Societies as enlisted in Notification dated 17.10.2011 and since, Respondent No. 4/Seema CGHS is not one of the enlisted Societies, the Petitioners cannot seek regularisation is incorrect as it fails to take into consideration the Hon’ble LG’s decision dated 20.09.2011 and its own policy circular dated 24.11.2011.

24. The Respondent No. 1/RCS has the jurisdiction to regularize selfdraw conducted by the Society prior to 2010, if the members are eligible and in the facts of this case, Respondent No. 1 has failed to exercise its jurisdiction.

25. As noted above, the Respondent No. 1/RCS has not disputed the eligibility of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

26. Objection to the eligibility of Petitioner No. 3 has been raised for the first time in written submissions dated 10.09.2025 only. The allotment of Petitioner No. 3 was approved by Respondent No. 4 Society on 11.07.2004 and she has been in uninterrupted possession of the flat since 2006. Petitioner No. 3 is 91 years old. There is no dispute vis-à-vis her entitlement and membership by any other members of the Society. Her documents were duly verified by the Assistant Registrar of Respondent No. 1/RCS and found genuine as recorded in the noting dated 26.02.2016.

27. The documents of Petitioner No. 3 are available in the record of Respondent No. 1/RCS and no document has been annexed with the written submissions to show that she is ineligible. The plea in the written submission merely refers to the fact that the date of approval of membership by the Managing Committee is 11.07.2004, whereas the date of application for membership is 16.07.2004. This difference of five (5) days is nominal and may have a reasonable explanation; which Respondent No. 1/RCS never sought from the Petitioner No. 3 and in fact, the Assistant Registrar in the noting dated 26.02.2016 after noting these dates recorded that she is a genuine allotee. In these facts, the objection raised to Petitioner No. 3’s entitlement, after a period of 21 years fails to persuade the Court and is therefore, rejected.

28. This plea of discrepancy is not raised in the review petition and is therefore not supported by affidavit. It is regrettably noted that such a plea has only been taken in the written statement at this belated stage to create a prejudice, however, the same fails to persuade the Court.

29. Notwithstanding our finding that RCS has requisite jurisdiction to regularise the self-draw dated 25.12.2005, upon a query from this Court, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/RCS clarified that Respondent NO. 1/RCS never applied to the Hon’ble LG for seeking approval of the selfdraw conducted by Respondent No. 4 Society during the period between 2005 to 2024 and even after the judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by this Court. This omission and inaction of Respondent No. 1/RCS show its complete apathy towards the plight of the Petitioners, who have been diligently following up for regularisation of their allotment. The bogey of lack of approval of Hon’ble LG is therefore, a mere ruse to deny the rights of the Petitioners herein.

30. In identical facts, similar order of regularisation of self-draw held prior to 2010 has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajeev Saxena (supra) vide judgment dated 16.05.2025. A perusal of the order dated 22.08.2025 subsequently passed in the said writ petition [W.P. (C) 12218/2021] shows that the RCS has already implemented the said order of the Division Bench in favour of the petitioner therein namely, Mr. Anup Banerjee vis-à-vis DJS CGHS Ltd.

31. In the aforesaid legal background viz. authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajeev Saxena (supra), this Court has thought it fit to endorse its earlier view as ordered in the decision under review.

32. As far as the scope of review is concerned, the Apex Court has occasioned to continue summarize all the principles which are laid down till this date in the recent judgment in the matter of Malleeswari versus K. Suguna and Another (supra). Paragraph Nos. 15 to 17.[3] of the said judgment reads thus:

15.[5] The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.

16. To wit, though a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.

17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows: 17.[1] The ground for discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.[2] Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 17.[3] Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.”

33. Similarly, the Apex Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma versus Mayawati and Others (supra) has considered the scope of review and the maintainability of the proceedings and has laid down the principles in the cases in which review is maintainable. Paragraph Nos. 20, 20.[1] and 20.[2] of the said judgment reads thus: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144: (1922) 16 LW 37: AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526: (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337: JT (2013) 8 SC 275]

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

34. As such it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent No. 1/RCS to demonstrate that they have a case for review which is qualifying the aforesaid principles so also the parameters qua the exercise of the review jurisdiction.

35. If we consider the plea of review canvassed by the Respondent NO. 1/RCS particularly as regards the absence of powers of the Registrar and that of the Petitioners being not qualified for the regularization of allotment, we have already recorded substantial reasons in support of the prayer of the Petitioners for their entitlement for such relief.

36. In our opinion, the Respondent No. 1/RCS has failed to demonstrate that they have discovered new and important matter of evidence or there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Rather the Respondent No. 1/RCS having already accepted and acted upon the judgment in the matter of Rajiv Saxena (supra) cannot be said to have any case/review as the said judgment was complied with by the Respondent No. 1/RCS which is based on the similar set of facts.

37. Apart from above, the review petition is grossly barred by limitation as the Respondent No. 1/Review Petitioner is unable to give sufficient and bona fide cause and support to the prayer of condonation of delay.

38. This Court is equally required to be sensitive to the plight of the Petitioner who cannot be made to suffer and get entangled in further round of litigation for the failure of the Respondent No. 1/Review Petitioner in reporting compliance of the order under review. That being so, in case if the Respondent No. 1/Review Petitioner fails to report the compliance of the order of this Court within a period of two (2) months from today including that of the consequential execution of lease by DDA, this Court will not only be constrained to saddle exemplary cost but also shall be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

39. In the light of above, since the review petition is not only preferred at much belated stage and same being sans of any legal ground is dismissed with cost.

40. List for compliance on 25.11.2025.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2025/MG/mt/msh