Self-conducted draw of lots for cooperative society flat allotment is regularizable where no substantive irregularity exists.

The Petitioner, a 77-year-old senior citizen, sought regularization of the allotment of flat no. E-209 in the Jatav Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd

The flat was originally allotted to Mr. Shiv Raj Singh Kardam via a draw of lots on June 14, 1998

In 2003, Mr. Kardam executed a Power of Attorney in favor of the Petitioner, granting her management and sale rights over the property

While the Society issued a "No Objection Certificate" for leasehold-to-freehold conversion, the Petitioner’s formal allotment remained pending despite multiple representations

On April 27, 2026, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) rejected the request, stating the original draw of lots was a "self-draw" conducted without RCS approval

The court relied on the 2011 decision by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, which allowed for the regularization of self-conducted draws of lots for cooperative societies provided no irregularities other than procedural ones existed

It specifically applied the precedent set in Rajeev Saxena & Ors. v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors. (2025), which held that if a society acts without ill-motive and the membership is valid, the RCS should adopt a pragmatic approach rather than insisting on technicalities

The court also invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to regularize allotments to prevent long-term harassment of bona fide members

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s membership status was not in dispute and the Society had already expressed "No Objection" to the allotment

Drawing a parallel to the Rajiv Saxena case, the Court reasoned that the delay and refusal by the RCS constituted "considerable harassment" over procedural technicalities

The Court emphasized that the 2011 Lieutenant Governor's notification was intended to provide a mechanism for regularizing such draws where the outcomes were accepted by members and lacked substantive fraud

Since the failure to obtain approval was a procedural lapse by the Society or RCS, and not the individual member, the Court determined that the Petitioner should not be deprived of her property rights

The Court ordered the Petitioner and the Society to appear before the RCS on June 4, 2026, for document verification [para. 8]. The RCS was directed to take a decision on the allotment within two months, and subsequently forward the recommendation to the DDA for lease deed execution and freehold conversion [para. 9, 10]. The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the Petitioner to move the Court if the respondents failed to comply within the stipulated timeline