Bombay High Court
Vijay Nagari Coop Hsg Society Ltd Throu. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Throu Govt Pleader ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:43592
61-wp9442-2024 & connected.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9442 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12576 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12577 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12578 OF 2024
Digitally
ATUL
signed by
ATUL
GANESH
WITH
GANESH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2025.10.09
14:33:43
WRIT PETITION NO.12579 OF 2024
+0530
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12580 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12581 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12620 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12582 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12583 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12585 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12584 OF 2024
Vijay Nagari Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd., through it's President
and Secretary ... Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 00:23:02 :::
61-wp9442-2024 & connected.doc
Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh for the petitioner in all WPs.
Mr. J.P. Patil, AGP for State in all WPs.
Mrs. P.G. Gavhane, AGP for WP/12585/2024.
Ms. Shraddha Nagaonkar with Mr. Sagar Shetty for
respondent Nos.3 & 4-CIDCO in all WP.
Mr. Vaibhav Ugle with Mr. Vikas Somawanshi, and Mr.
Santosh Shukla for respondent Nos.5 & 6 in all WPs.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 8, 2025
P.C.:
1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions to challenge
the judgment and order dated 9 February 2024 passed by
respondent No.2, the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, in Revision
Application No. 90 of 2022. By the said order, the Minister
confirmed the order dated 21 January 2022 passed by respondent
No.3, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (CIDCO), under
Sections 22(2) and 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Act, 1960.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to these petitions are as
follows. CIDCO allotted a plot of land to the proposed petitioner-
society on lease. The petitioner-society was thereafter registered
on 10 December 1998. On 15 December 1998, CIDCO issued the
allotment letter, and on 17 December 1998, CIDCO executed the
agreement to lease in favour of the petitioner-society.
3. On 9 February 1999, CIDCO, in its capacity as the Planning
Authority, granted permission to the petitioner-society for
61-wp9442-2024 & connected.doc
construction over the said plot. The petitioner contends that its
contractor and architect obtained sanction from CIDCO for
construction of 56 flats and 22 shops, but they did so without
proper site verification. In fact, only 51 flats exist. It is alleged that
the then Chairman of the society, who also acted as the developer,
constructed unauthorized structures and executed sale deeds in
favour of various persons who later applied for membership.
4. Respondent No.5 in each petition filed an application before
the Joint Registrar claiming that, as per the Annual General
Meeting held on 5 January 2001, the society had authorized Vastu
Shakti Engineers Private Limited to sell flats and shops equivalent
to 10% of the FSI.
5. The petitioner submits that in July 2011, an Administrator
was appointed to manage the affairs of the petitioner-society. The
Administrator prepared the records of the society. However, the
earlier managing committee did not hand over the financial
documents, audit reports, and other records to the Administrator.
6. The petitioner thereafter lodged a criminal complaint against
the then Chairman and developer, Balasaheb Doble, alleging
offences of forgery, criminal conspiracy, fraud, and
misappropriation. The said complaint was registered as Crime
Register No. 254 of 2024. The accused was arrested and
subsequently released on bail.
7. Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed an application dated 3
August 2021 before respondent No.3 under Sections 22(2) and
23(2) of the MCS Act. The petitioner contested the same by filing a
61-wp9442-2024 & connected.doc
detailed reply. After hearing both sides, respondent No.3 directed
the petitioner-society to grant membership to respondent No.5 in
each petition. The petitioner-society preferred Revision Application
No. 90 of 2022, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The
society has, therefore, filed the present writ petitions.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
development agreement dated 25 February 1997 relied upon by
respondent No.5 does not contain any clear description of the
property. It is also prior to the registration of the society. The
petitioner contends that the documents submitted by respondent
No.4 are forged and that no unit is available for allotment to
respondent No.5. Further, respondent No.5 has not filed any
application for membership with the society. Hence, no order
under Sections 22(2) and 23(2) of the MCS Act could have been
passed. The jurisdiction under these provisions arises only when a
person's application for membership is rejected. In absence of such
an application, the Authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in
directing the society to grant membership to respondent No.5.
9. The petitioner-society has also filed Special Civil Suit No.64
of 2025 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, for
appropriate reliefs concerning the disputed property and
transactions.
10. On the other hand, learned Advocate for respondent No.5
submitted that the applicants are bona fide purchasers who hold
registered sale deeds in their favour. They are not concerned with
any dispute of title between the society and the developer. Grant of
61-wp9442-2024 & connected.doc
membership under Section 23(2) does not amount to adjudication
of ownership or title; it merely enables such purchasers to enjoy
membership benefits. These members shall remain bound by the
outcome of Special Civil Suit No.64 of 2025. It was further
submitted that the direction to grant membership is subject to
CIDCO's permission. Once a registered sale deed exists in favour of
respondent No.5, the society cannot refuse to admit them as
members. It was therefore urged that the writ court should not
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the
concurrent findings of the authorities below.
11. Having heard both sides and upon careful examination of the
record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent
findings recorded by the statutory authorities. The reasons for
directing the petitioner-society to grant membership to respondent
No.5, subject to the outcome of Special Civil Suit No.64 of 2025,
are as follows.
12. The power conferred under Section 23(2) of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 enables the Registrar
to direct a society to admit a person as a member if such person is
otherwise eligible and his application is improperly refused. The
said power is intended to ensure that societies do not act
arbitrarily in denying membership to lawful purchasers or
occupiers having a legitimate claim derived from a recognized
transaction.
13. The material placed on record shows that respondent No.5
holds a registered sale deed in respect of a unit constructed on the
61-wp9442-2024 & connected.doc
land allotted to the society by CIDCO. The validity of such sale
deed or the legality of the developer's actions are issues directly
raised in Special Civil Suit No.64 of 2025 pending before the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. Hence, those issues will be decided
in that civil proceeding.
14. Grant of membership under Section 23(2) does not confer
ownership rights. It only allows a person, in whose favour a valid
sale deed stands, to participate in the affairs of the society as a
member and to protect the premises in which he has a possessory
interest. The title of the property continues to remain subject to
the final adjudication in the pending civil suit.
15. The authorities below have correctly observed that denying
membership to respondent No.5 would cause practical hardship
and disturb the management of the premises. Membership only
enables respondent No.5 to contribute towards maintenance and
participate in the functioning of the society, which is necessary for
upkeep and administration of the building.
16. The society's contention that respondent No.5 did not make
a formal application for membership cannot be accepted. The
correspondence and the proceedings before the Registrar show
that respondent No.5 had approached the society and thereafter
invoked the jurisdiction of the statutory authority upon refusal.
The Registrar was therefore justified in exercising power under
Section 23(2) of the Act.
17. The apprehension of the petitioner that granting
membership would prejudice its rights in the civil suit is
61-wp9442-2024 & connected.doc
unfounded. The authorities have specifically directed that
membership will be subject to the decision of Special Civil Suit
No.64 of 2025. This condition ensures that the grant of
membership will not amount to recognition of ownership or
validate any disputed transaction.
18. In cooperative jurisprudence, membership carries
administrative and participatory rights, not proprietary title.
Hence, to preserve the rights of all parties and ensure proper
management of the society, it is appropriate to continue the
direction to grant membership to respondent No.5, subject to the
final outcome of the said civil proceedings.
19. The Registrar and the Revisional Authority have acted within
their jurisdiction and have assigned cogent reasons for their
decisions. No perversity or error of law is demonstrated warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. For these reasons, this Court finds that the direction to the
petitioner-society to grant membership to respondent No.5 in each
petition is legal and proper. However, such membership shall
remain subject to the result of Special Civil Suit No.64 of 2025
pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel.
21. The rights of the parties to contest ownership, possession, or
title in the said suit are kept open.
22. All writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
