A society’s failure to forward approved membership to the RCS cannot defeat a bona fide purchaser’s regularization rights.

The Petitioner claimed ownership and possession of Flat No. G-33, Tara Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., Alaknanda, Delhi. The flat was originally allotted to A.C. Sen, who resigned on 14 April 1978. Thereafter, the Society allotted it to Brig. S.K. Puri, whose membership was approved by the Society’s Managing Committee on 17 August 1978.

The Petitioner purchased the flat from Brig. S.K. Puri on 7 January 2004 and remained in possession thereafter.

The Petitioner deposited ₹2,08,100 towards conversion charges for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold on 2 April 2013, but the DDA did not process the application because its records continued to reflect A.C. Sen as the original allottee and did not contain membership clearance in favour of Brig. S.K. Puri.

The Society issued a No-Dues Certificate and stated that it had no objection to regularisation and conversion of the flat.

The Petitioner’s representation to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (“RCS”) dated 19 February 2026 seeking regularisation and membership was not acted upon, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The RCS objected that the Society had not forwarded Brig. S.K. Puri’s membership for recognition in accordance with Rule 24 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (“DCS Rules”).

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions to public authorities for enforcement of legal rights.

It applied Rule 24(1)(i) and (ii) of the DCS Rules, 1973, under which admission to membership requires a written application and approval by the Managing Committee.

The Court held that where these substantive requirements had been fulfilled, a subsequent administrative lapse by the Society in not forwarding the membership documents to the RCS could not unfairly prejudice the member or a bona fide subsequent purchaser.

It also applied the principle that administrative formalities should not operate inequitably against a person who had submitted an application and paid the requisite charges long before the administrative process was suspended.

The Court found that the Society’s records established that Brig. S.K. Puri’s membership had been approved by the Managing Committee in 1978, satisfying the material requirements of Rule 24(1)(i) and (ii).

The failure to forward the membership application to the RCS was treated as a lapse attributable to the Society and not to Brig. S.K. Puri or the Petitioner.

The Petitioner had purchased the flat in 2004, remained in possession for more than 22 years, cleared all dues, obtained the Society’s No-Dues Certificate, and was supported by the Society’s express position that she was entitled to regularisation.

Accordingly, the Court held that the absence of formal RCS records could not defeat her claim.

As regards conversion, the Court noted that the DDA had not processed the Petitioner’s 2013 application because of the membership-record discrepancy, while the conversion portal had subsequently been suspended.

Since the delay was not attributable to the Petitioner and the conversion charges had already been paid in 2013, requiring compliance with formalities based on a later application date would be inequitable.

The RCS was directed to send its recommendation to the DDA by 15 October 2026, and the DDA was directed to issue a letter of regularisation by 10 December 2026.

Once the IDLI portal became operational, the Petitioner was to file a formal conversion application, which would be treated as having been made on 2 April 2013, when the conversion charges were deposited.

The DDA was directed to complete the leasehold-to-freehold conversion within three months of the formal application, subject to requisite formalities.

The matter was listed for compliance on 14 December 2026.