Bombay High Court
Shehnaz T. Hussain vs The Minister Of Co-Operation on 18 August, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:35906-DB
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9365 OF 2025
Shehnaz T. Hussain ...Petitioner
Versus
The Minister of Co-operation and ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Ankit Lohia, a/w Priyanka Dubey, Megha Gupta, Pranav
Nair, Khusboo Acharya, Esha Gor, Yogesh Dubey and
SANTOSH
SUBHASH Harsh Agarwal, i/b Hedgehog and Fox LLP, for the
KULKARNI Petitioner.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI Mr. Anil D'Souza, a/w Mark Dbritoo, i/b Ernest Tuscano, for
Date: 2025.08.21
11:10:25 +0530 Respondent Nos.4 to 6.
Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP for the State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 18th AUGUST, 2025
ORDER:
-
1. The petitioner calls in question the legality, propriety and
correctness of a judgment and order passed by the Minister, Co-
operation, in Revision Application No.710 of 2024, whereby the
said revision application preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3
came to be allowed by setting aside an order dated 21 st October,
2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Appeal No.22 of
2024, which had, in turn, set aside an order dated 26 th April,
2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 18 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("the Act, 1960"),
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
thereby publishing a draft scheme of division of Jay Tirupati Co-
operative Housing Society ("the Society").
2. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Society and a
representative of 28 other members of the said Society and also
a member of the Administration Board of the Society appointed
to administer the affairs of the Society.
3. The Society consisted of five buildings i.e. Building Nos.1,
2, 3, 4 and 5 constructed on the land bearing Survey Nos.352,
370, 371, 372 and 373 situated at Father Wadi, Vasai (E),
Palghar. By a Deed of Conveyance dated 19 th October, 2015, the
entire land was transferred to the Society.
4. Building Nos.1 and 2 and the land underneath/
surroundings Building Nos.1 and 2 were proposed to be
acquired by the Central Railways for the Mumbai - Ahmadabad
Bullet Train Project. Building Nos.1 and 2 were situated on
Survey No.372/2/1 and 2/2, Plot No.32 and Survey No.373/2/1
and 2/2 and Plot No.33, respectively, admeasuring 384 sq.
mtrs. each. A notification came to be issued on 20 th November,
2020 under which an area admeasuring 370 sq. mtrs. out of
Survey Nos.372 and 373 (in aggregate 768 sq. mtrs.), alongwith
Building Nos.1 and 2 standing thereon was acquired. An area
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
admeasuring 398 sq. mtrs. thus remained out of Survey
Nos.372 and 373.
5. Indisputably, the occupants of the flats in Building Nos.1
and 2 have been paid the compensation in terms of the award
dated 3rd November, 2022.
6. In the wake of the aforesaid development, a Special
General Meeting of the Society was convened on 1 st August,
2022. It was resolved to divide the Society into two separate
societies comprising of Building Nos.1 and 2, on the one part,
and rest of the buildings, on the other part. It was further
resolved that the compensation to be awarded for the
acquisition of the land and buildings, be divided amongst the
members of Building Nos.1 and 2, and the Society had no
objection to transfer rest of the land i.e. 398 sq. mtrs. to the new
society to be formed by the members of Building Nos.1 and 2.
7. It seems disputes arose after the aforesaid purported
resolution dated 1st August, 2022.
8. The members of Building Nos.3, 4 and 5 filed a dispute
before the Co-operative Court, Thane, seeking a declaration that
the resolution dated 1st August, 2022 was passed without
following due procedure of law, and was, thus, illegal, and allied
reliefs. The members of Building Nos.1 and 2 sought orders
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, 1960 for bifurcation of the
Society and registration of a new society of the members of
Building Nos.1 and 2.
9. The Deputy Registrar, by an order dated 26 th April, 2024,
was persuaded to publish a draft scheme under Section 18 of
the Act, 1960 read with Rule 17 of the Rules 1961 and invited
suggestions and objections thereto.
10. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional
Joint Registrar, being Appeal No.22 of 2022. The Divisional
Joint Registrar by order dated 21st October, 2024 was persuaded
to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the
Deputy Registrar holding, inter alia, that the order of
publication of the draft scheme was prejudicial to the members
of Building Nos.3, 4 and 5 as the members of Building Nos.1
and 2 had been paid compensation for the acquisition of the
land and the buildings.
11. The Minister was of the view that the Divisional Joint
Registrar committed an error in setting aside the order as the
resolution passed by the Society on 1 st October, 2022 was still
holding the field though challenged by way of a dispute before
the Co-operative Court.
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
12. Mr. Lohia, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that though there were separate survey numbers and
plot numbers, on which different buildings were standing, yet
the entire land belonged to the Society. A submission was
sought to be canvassed that the members of Building Nos.1 and
2 having received the compensation for the land and building, in
a sense, transferred their interest in the respective flats and,
thus, there was cessation of their membership. Though, at this
stage, the validity of the resolution dated 1 st August, 2022 is not
questioned, yet, from the tenor of the said resolution itself,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled to seek registration of a
separate society, submitted Mr. Lohia.
13. Mr. D'Souza, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
3, countered the submissions of Mr. Lohia. Attention of the
Court was invited to the prayers in the dispute filed by the
members of Building Nos.3 to 5 before the Co-operative Court,
and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, wherein complete
details of the land qua each of the survey numbers and plots,
the area of land acquired for the bullet train project and the
area of land which still remained out of Survey Nos.372 and 373
are indicated. Mr. D'Souza submitted that if the impugned order
is considered in the light of the material on record, no
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
interference is warranted, in exercise of the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction.
14. Upon perusal of the material on record, it prima facie
appears that the resolution passed by the Society on 1 st August,
2022 still holds the field. The instant challenge is not at the
instance of the Society. Even if the claim of the petitioner that
she is entitled to represent 28 other members of the Society is
taken at par, yet, the decision of the Society binds the individual
members of the Society as it is well recognized that once a
person becomes a member of a co-operative Society, he loses his
individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights,
except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. He
must act and speak through the Society, nay the Society alone
can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the Society as
a body. (Daman Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors. 1)
15. Secondly, it is imperative to note that the resolution dated
1st August, 2022, whereby the Society resolved to carve out a
separate society for the members of Building Nos.1 and 2 and
also allot the balance land out of Survey Nos.372 and 373 (on
which those buildings stood) has been challenged before the Co-
operative Court by raising a dispute. As of date of the passing of
1 (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 670.
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
the impugned order; there was no order of any competent court
which dents the legality and validity of the said resolution.
16. In these circumstances, the Minister was within his rights
in exercising the revisional jurisdiction to correct the mistake,
which the Divisional Joint Registrar has committed in setting
aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. The fact that
the compensation has been paid to the members of Building
Nos.1 and 2 seems to have swayed the decision of the Joint
Registrar. However, the fact that a substantial portion of the
land on which Building Nos.1 and 2 stood i.e. 398 sq. mtrs. yet
remained out of the said survey numbers was lost sight of by
the Divisional Joint Registrar.
17. The aforesaid factor coupled with the resolution passed by
the Society on 1st August, 2022 furnishes a sufficient foundation
for initiation of the proceedings for formation of a separate
society of the members of erstwhile Building Nos.1 and 2. The
question as to whether the members of Building Nos.3, 4 and 5
are exclusively entitled to even the balance area of 398 sq. mtrs.
could not have been delved into by the authorities under the
Act, 1960. The question of exclusive entitlement thereto would
be a matter for adjudication in the dispute already filed by the
28-WP9365-2025.DOC
members of Building Nos.3, 4 and 5 or a comprehensive civil
suit.
18. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order
which restores the order of Deputy Registrar, who had published
the draft scheme in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules, 1961,
does not warrant any interference in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction.
19. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
20. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not entered into
the merits of the claim as regards the title over the balance 398
sq. mtrs. land out of Survey Nos.372 and 373. If a title dispute
arises in an appropriate proceeding, the Competent Court shall
decide the same in accordance with law and without being
influenced by any of the observations hereinabove which were
confined to determine the legality and propriety of the order
publishing draft scheme for the division of the society and
formation of a new society comprising the members of Building
Nos.1 and 2.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
