In a significant ruling for cooperative housing societies across Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has held that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction under Section 79(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to cancel a member’s share certificate or decide questions of ownership when a serious title dispute is pending.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne on 17 July 2026 in Writ Petition No. 890 of 2018 titled Saili Durgadas Acharya v. Nandan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Background of the Dispute
The case revolved around Flat No. A/4 (650 sq.ft carpet) in Nandan Co-operative Housing Society at Veer Savarkar Marg, Shivaji Park, Mumbai.
The original sole member was Balmukund Acharya, who received the share certificate in his exclusive name in 1978. In 1981, the society added the name of his brother Dattakumar Acharya as a joint/nominal member. Balmukund consistently maintained that Dattakumar was only a gratuitous licensee and never acquired any ownership rights. He even filed an eviction suit in the Small Causes Court and later dropped the prayer for deletion of Dattakumar’s name solely because that court lacked jurisdiction over membership matters.
After the deaths of Balmukund (2011) and his son Durgadas (2012), the petitioner Saili Durgadas Acharya (granddaughter of Balmukund) applied for and was granted sole membership. The society issued a fresh share certificate in her name on 21 October 2012 and also cancelled Dattakumar’s car parking.
Dattakumar then approached the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (G/N Ward). By order dated 16 May 2016, the Deputy Registrar directed the society under Section 79(2) of the MCS Act to:
- Cancel Saili’s membership and share certificate,
- Restore water supply to the flat, and
- Return the car parking space to Dattakumar.
Saili challenged this order directly before the High Court.
What the High Court Held
Justice Marne meticulously examined the scope of Section 79(2). The Court held that this provision is purely supervisory and enforcement-oriented. It empowers the Registrar only to ensure that a society performs duties mandated under the Act, Rules, Bye-laws, or earlier orders of the Registrar. It does not confer adjudicatory powers to decide title or cancel membership.
The Court observed: “Power conferred under Section 79(2) of the MCS Act is merely supervisory in nature… It cannot be confused with the adjudicatory power under which the Registrar can decide the disputes relating to the title or possession of a flat/unit in society’s building.”
Key findings of the Court:
- There was a serious, long-standing title dispute between the parties dating back to 1981.
- No prior order of the Registrar existed directing cancellation of Saili’s membership.
- Cancellation of membership is not an action that a society is required to take under the Act, Rules or Bye-laws in the absence of proper adjudication.
- The Deputy Registrar himself acknowledged the existence of a title dispute yet proceeded to order cancellation — thereby exceeding his jurisdiction.
- The belief that cancelling Saili’s name would automatically revive Dattakumar’s joint membership was “fallacious”.
The Court relied on its recent decision in Sadashiv Nagappa Kadam v. State of Maharashtra (WP 2595 of 2026, decided 4 May 2026), which had already clarified that the Registrar under Section 79 (or Section 154B-27) cannot decide questions of ownership or entitlement to immovable property.
On Maintainability
The Court rejected the objection of alternate remedy under Section 152 MCS Act, holding that when an order is wholly without jurisdiction, the availability of statutory appeal does not bar a writ petition (relying on the Supreme Court’s Whirlpool Corporation principle). It also rejected allegations of suppression of facts and parallel remedies, noting that both the intervention in the society’s appeal and the later-withdrawn Co-operative Court dispute had been fully disclosed.
Final Directions
The High Court partly allowed the petition:
- Direction No. 1 of the 16 May 2016 order (cancellation of Saili’s membership and share certificate) was set aside.
- Directions No. 2 and 3 (restoration of water supply and return of car parking) were maintained, as these fall within the legitimate supervisory powers of the Registrar.
- The Court clarified that nothing in the judgment decides the actual title or possession. Both parties remain free to pursue their claims before the competent Civil Court or Co-operative Court.
- Respondent No. 2A (Nandita Acharya, daughter of late Dattakumar) is at liberty to seek cancellation of Saili’s membership through proper legal proceedings.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling draws a clear red line for Deputy Registrars across Maharashtra. In an era of rising family disputes over flats in old housing societies, the judgment prevents administrative officers from short-circuiting the judicial process and deciding ownership claims under the guise of “directives” under Section 79(2).
For housing societies, the message is equally important: membership transfer and cancellation must follow the due process laid down in the MCS Act and Bye-laws. Registrar’s office cannot be used as a parallel forum for title battles.
The judgment reinforces that questions of who owns a flat — especially in multi-generational family disputes — must be decided by courts of competent jurisdiction, not by administrative directives.
Also Read: Housing Society is the Boss: Bombay HC Strikes Down Registrar’s Role in Redevelopment NOCs
