### Proportional Land Share and Statutory Limitation Bar Challenges to Housing Society Membership Disqualification Case Brief: Factual Matrix: The Petitioner challenged the membership of Respondent No. 1 (Smt. Santa Dey) in a Co-operative Group Housing Society, alleging she violated Rule 25(1)(c) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies (DCS) Rules, 1973. The Petitioner claimed Respondent No. 1 concealed that her husband already owned a DDA flat at the time of her allotment. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS) and the Financial Commissioner dismissed the complaints, leading to this writ petition. Key Legal Issues: 1. Whether the ownership of a flat by a spouse automatically disqualifies a person from society membership under Rule 25(1)(c). 2. Whether a challenge to membership is subject to the three-year limitation period prescribed under the DCS Act, 2003 and Rules, 2007. 3. The *locus standi* of a "busybody" or "interloper" in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. Court's Reasoning: * Proportionate Share: The Court held that under the proviso to Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of the 1973 Rules, disqualification is not attracted if the individual's proportionate share of the underlying land is less than 66.72 sq. metres. As the husband’s flat was part of a multi-storey complex, the Petitioner failed to prove his land share exceeded this limit. * Statutory Limitation: The Court affirmed that per Rule 100 of the DCS Rules, 2007, read with Section 87 of the DCS Act, 2003, no ground for cessation of membership can be raised after three years from the date of allotment. The complaint, filed nearly a decade later, was time-barred. * Locus Standi: Citing *K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya*, the Court strictly criticized the Petitioner as a "meddlesome interloper." It ruled that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 requires the infringement of a personal legal right; a third party with no personal interest cannot maintain such a challenge. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the RCS and the Financial Commissioner, concluding that no fraud was established and the challenge was barred by limitation.

The Petitioner, a member of the Respondent No. 2 Cooperative Group Housing Society ("Society"), challenged the membership of Respondent No. 1 (Smt. Santa Dey).

He alleged that Respondent No. 1 obtained membership in 2000-2001 by filing a false affidavit concealing that her husband owned a DDA flat in Dwarka.

Respondent No. 1 had later surrendered her original flat (No. 351) and acquired a different one (No. 336) in 2004.

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS) dismissed the Petitioner’s complaint in 2013, finding no disqualification under the 1973 Rules.

This was upheld by the Financial Commissioner in 2017.

Separately, the Petitioner was involved in prolonged litigation regarding his own expulsion from the Society for filing "frivolous and anti-society" complaints.

Whether Respondent No. 1 was disqualified from membership under Rule 25(1)(c) of the DCS Rules, 1973 due to her spouse owning another residential unit.

Whether the Petitioner's complaint was barred by the limitation period prescribed under the DCS Act, 2003 and Rules, 2007.

Whether the Petitioner had the locus standi to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

The court applied Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies (DCS) Rules, 1973, which disqualifies individuals from housing society membership if they or their family own a residential unit, provided that this does not apply to co-sharers of property whose share is less than 66.72 sq. metres.

It applied Section 87 of the DCS Act, 2003 and Rule 100 of the DCS Rules, 2007, which bars raising grounds for cessation of membership three years after the date of allotment.

Regarding locus standi, the court relied on Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, stating that a petitioner must show infringement of a personal legal right and that "busybodies" or "meddlesome interlopers" should be rejected.

It also cited Alimuddin v. RCS regarding the interpretation of "ownership" in the name of a spouse.

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to provide any evidence that the DDA flat owned by Respondent No. 1’s husband resulted in a land share exceeding the 66.72 sq. metre threshold; since it was a multi-storey unit of 92 sq. metres, the proportionate land share was logically below the limit.

Furthermore, the court determined the complaint was filed in 2011, a decade after the 2001 allotment, violating the three-year limitation period set by Rule 100 of the 2007 Rules.

The Court scrutinized the Petitioner's conduct, characterizing him as a "busybody" who suffered no personal injury from Respondent No. 1's membership and noting his history of "habitual" and "frivolous" litigation against the Society.

The Court held that no disqualification was proved under Rule 25(1)(c) of the 1973 Rules and that the challenge was barred by limitation.

It further held that the Petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not an "aggrieved person" but a "meddlesome interloper."

All pending applications were rendered infructuous.