Justice Amit Borkar, in his order pronounced on 7 May 2026, allowed the writ petition filed by Vishal T. Lathia and other members of the Managing Committee of Nensey Cottage Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, located at Sant Dyaneshwar Marg, Borivali (East). The court set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (R-North Ward), and the Divisional Joint Registrar, terming the action as a “colourable exercise of power” influenced by external political pressure.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy arose when the society, which had secured 85% member consent for redevelopment and appointed a developer, faced opposition from a section of members. These members, instead of approaching the appropriate forums, routed their grievances through a local Member of Legislative Council (MLC) belonging to the same political party as one of the complainants, Mr. Sudhir Hattangadi.

On 26 August 2025, the MLC wrote to the Deputy Registrar. On the same day, the Deputy Registrar issued a show cause notice. Subsequently, on 27 November 2025, the Deputy Registrar passed an order under Section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, disqualifying the managing committee members for two years (later reduced to six months), citing non-submission of Audit Rectification Reports for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Later, on 20 January 2026, an Administrator was appointed under Section 77A(1)(b-1), and one of the complainants was made part of the board. The bank accounts of the society were also frozen.

High Court’s Key Observations

Justice Borkar observed that the petitioners had submitted clear documentary evidence — letters dated 25 September 2023 and 10 September 2024 with official acknowledgements from the Deputy Registrar’s office — proving that the audit rectification reports and accounts were duly submitted. However, both the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar failed to consider this material and passed orders mechanically.

The court noted that the entire proceedings were triggered by a politically motivated complaint. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of M.P. vs. Sanjay Nagayach (2013), Justice Borkar held that statutory authorities like the Registrar must function independently and cannot act under external pressure or political influence.

The judge remarked that the “chain of events” — complaint to the MLC, immediate letter from the MLC, and swift action by the Deputy Registrar on the same day — created a strong impression that the authority did not apply its mind independently. The court described this as a colourable exercise of power.

The appointment of the Administrator was also set aside as it was based on the flawed disqualification order. The court further criticised the use of the urgency proviso under Section 77A without recording valid reasons and noted the conflict of interest in appointing a complainant as part of the Administrator board.

Relief Granted and Directions Issued

The High Court passed the following directions:

• All impugned orders dated 27.11.2025, 20.01.2026, and 15.04.2026 stand quashed and set aside.
• The disqualification of the petitioners is cancelled.
• The original Managing Committee stands restored forthwith.
• The Administrator must immediately hand over charge, records, and documents to the restored committee.
• The society’s bank accounts shall be restored to the Managing Committee.

In a significant direction, the court ordered the Secretary, Co-operation Department, to examine the conduct of the Deputy Registrar (who passed the original orders) and the Divisional Joint Registrar. The State Government has been directed to call for their explanations and decide on disciplinary action within three months. A compliance affidavit must be filed in the High Court.

The request for stay of the judgment made by Respondent No. 12 was rejected by the court.

Significance of the Order

This judgment sends a strong message against political interference in the functioning of cooperative housing societies, especially in redevelopment matters. It reiterates that democratically elected bodies cannot be removed casually on the basis of politically motivated complaints without independent application of mind by statutory authorities.

The matter has been listed for compliance on 10 August 2026.

Also Read: Bombay HC Ends 20-Year Battle, Orders Eviction from Prime Bandra Plot

The post Bombay High Court Orders Probe Against Deputy Registrar Over Political Influence in Coop Society appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, deciding Writ Petition Nos. 11982 of 2025, 11988 of 2025 and WP (ST) 29872 of 2025, set aside multiple orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and District Deputy Registrar (DDR), Co-operative Societies, Pune district.

Project and Parties

The dispute arose from a residential project developed on Gat Nos. 134/1 and 134/2 at Village Jalochi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, within the limits of the Baramati Municipal Council. The total land area of the project is approximately 26,000 square metres.

The petitioner, Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar, is a flat purchaser in the project. He approached the High Court after co-operative authorities permitted a society backed by the developer R.V. Realty to be registered, despite a prior purchaser-initiated application being pending under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

Buyers Invoke MOFA After Developer’s Failure

Under Section 10 of MOFA, a promoter is required to form a co-operative housing society of flat purchasers within the prescribed time. When the developer failed to do so, a meeting of flat purchasers was held on 26 February 2025, in which Shelar was appointed Chief Promoter.

Acting under the first proviso to Section 10(1) of MOFA, Shelar filed Application No. 36 of 2025 before the District Deputy Registrar on 12 March 2025, seeking registration of a purchaser-led society. This application remained undecided for several months.

Parallel Move by Developer Group

While the buyers’ statutory application was pending, Rohit Jadhav, associated with R.V. Realty, submitted a separate proposal on 13 May 2025 before the Assistant Registrar.

Despite being informed of the earlier MOFA application:

• On 9 June 2025, the Assistant Registrar granted permission to the developer-backed group to open a bank account.
• On 17 June 2025, the purchaser-led application was rejected, citing the bank account permission granted to the rival group.
• On 18 June 2025, the developer-backed society was formally registered.

Allegations of Reduced Land and Fraud

Shelar contended that the developer-backed proposal covered only 7,903.86 square metres, sharply reducing the society’s land area from the original 26,000 square metres.

According to the petitioner:

• Such reduction would adversely affect common amenities, open spaces, future conveyance and development rights.
• Eighty-four flat purchasers filed affidavits alleging that their signatures were obtained fraudulently and that no valid general body meeting was conducted.

These objections, the petitioner argued, were ignored by the authorities.

Why the Court Intervened

The Bombay High Court held that the actions of the co-operative authorities were arbitrary and unfair.

Importantly, the Court explained that authorities had created what the law terms a “fait accompli” — a situation where officials take decisive and irreversible steps first, and then claim that nothing further can be done because the action has already been completed.

The Court noted that:

• By allowing the developer’s group to open a bank account and then registering the society,
• And by using those very steps to reject the buyers’ pending application,
  the authorities had effectively defeated a statutory right without deciding it on merits.

Such conduct, the Court held, is impermissible in law.

Key Findings

Justice Borkar held that:

• When a prior statutory application under MOFA is pending, it must be decided before entertaining any competing proposal.
• Numerical majority of flat purchasers cannot validate an illegal process.
• Serious allegations of fraudulent signatures cannot be brushed aside on the ground of lack of investigative powers.
• Reduction of the society’s land area without inquiry has serious civil consequences for purchasers.

Orders Passed

The High Court:

• Quashed the orders dated 9 June 2025, 17 June 2025, 18 June 2025, and the appellate order dated 21 August 2025.
• Restored Application No. 36 of 2025 for fresh adjudication by the District Deputy Registrar.
• Directed a detailed inquiry into:
  • Competing society proposals
  • Authenticity of member signatures
  • Correct land area to be included in the society
• Ordered that the society’s bank account remain frozen, with limited operational permissions if required.

In a significant observation, the Court also directed the State Government to place the record before the disciplinary authority to examine whether departmental action is warranted against the Assistant Registrar.

Why This Ruling Matters

The judgment sends a clear message that:

• Flat purchasers’ rights under MOFA are substantive and enforceable.
• Co-operative authorities cannot sidestep statutory protections by procedural shortcuts.
• Developers cannot defeat buyer-led processes by creating irreversible situations on paper.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Caps Construction at ‘The Imperial’ Tardeo, After Residents Object

The post Court Scraps Developer-Backed Society, Cites Illegal Short-Circuiting of Buyers’ Rights appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgment came in a long-running dispute involving Milan Cooperative Housing Society, Pune, and the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), over land surrendered in the late 1960s for a development plan reservation.

What the Dispute Was About

Milan Cooperative Housing Society had purchased a large parcel of land in Pune in 1967 and subsequently divided it into residential plots for its members. As part of the layout approval process, the land included:

• Mandatory open space reservations, and
• A reservation for a shopping centre under the city’s development plan.

Under municipal regulations prevailing at the time, the society was required to keep 10% of the land as open space, which would have significantly reduced its construction potential.

The Deal Struck with the Municipal Corporation

To overcome this limitation, the society entered into an arrangement with the Pune Municipal Corporation:

• The society surrendered land measuring 12,741 sq ft, equivalent to the area reserved for the shopping centre.
• The land was surrendered free of cost.
• In return, PMC waived the requirement to retain 10% of the land as open space.
• This waiver allowed the society to construct more buildings and accommodate all its members.
• A possession receipt dated 9 October 1970 recorded the handover of the land.

The layout plan was approved, and construction permissions were granted based on this understanding.

Why the Society Went to Court Decades Later

Nearly 28 years later, in 1998, the society filed a civil suit claiming:

• The land was never legally acquired by PMC.
• No proper acquisition process under the MRTP Act or municipal laws was followed.
• The possession receipt was obtained under coercion.
• Actual physical possession of the land was never handed over.
• Therefore, the society continued to be the owner and had the right to develop the land as a commercial building.

The society sought:

• A declaration of ownership, and
• An injunction restraining PMC from interfering with its alleged rights.

What the Lower Courts Held

Both the trial court and the first appellate court rejected the society’s claims, holding that:

• The society had voluntarily surrendered the land.
• It had enjoyed the benefits of relaxed planning norms.
• The challenge was raised after an unexplained delay of nearly three decades.

The society then approached the Bombay High Court in a Second Appeal.

High Court’s Key Findings

Justice Gauri Godse, dismissing the appeal, made several important observations:

1. FSI and Development Rights Are Valuable Consideration

The court held that land need not always be acquired by cash compensation.

Grant of additional FSI and development permissions has clear monetary value and constitutes valid consideration under law.

The surrender of land in exchange for higher construction potential was a valid acquisition under Section 126 of the MRTP Act.

2. This Was a Concluded and Binding Agreement

The court found that:

• The society willingly surrendered the land.
• PMC waived the open space requirement in return.
• Construction was allowed and completed.
• The society benefited from the arrangement for decades.

This amounted to a concluded contract, not a one-sided or forced transaction.

3. You Cannot Challenge the Deal After Enjoying Its Benefits

The court was categorical that a party cannot:

• Accept planning concessions,
• Use them to its advantage for decades, and
• Later challenge the legality of the same arrangement when land values rise.

The judgment makes it clear:

Planning benefits cannot be enjoyed first and questioned later.

4. Delay and Conduct Defeated the Society’s Claim

The court noted that:

• The society waited 28 years to approach the court.
• It never challenged the condition when the layout was sanctioned.
• Declaratory and injunctive reliefs are discretionary, not automatic.

Given the society’s conduct, the court refused to exercise discretion in its favour.

Final Verdict

The Bombay High Court:

• Dismissed Second Appeal No. 1400 of 2005
• Upheld the decisions of the lower courts
• Confirmed that the title to the surrendered land vested in Pune Municipal Corporation
• Ruled that the society had no right to reclaim or develop the land

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling serves as a strong reminder that:

• Development permissions come with binding conditions.
• FSI and planning relaxations have real economic value.
• Long-settled planning arrangements cannot be reopened due to rising land prices.
• Housing societies must act promptly if they wish to challenge planning conditions.

For urban local bodies, the judgment reinforces the legality of land acquisition through planning incentives rather than cash compensation.

Also Read: Renewal of Lease = New Lease, Attracts Stamp Duty Bombay High Court

The post You Can’t Take the Benefit and Challenge the Deal Later, Rules High Court Tells Housing Society appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Roots of the Dispute: A 1970s Land Redevelopment Gone Modern

The story traces back to the late 1970s in Bandra (West), Mumbai. Alexander Benedict Joseph Pereira (ABJ Pereira), the owner of a plot at St. Joseph’s Road (CTS No. C/257 and C/258, about 1,160 sq yards), formed a partnership firm called Erlyn Enterprises with three others via a Deed of Partnership dated September 25, 1978. The firm’s goal: redevelop the land into a multi-storied residential building.

Erlyn Enterprises constructed “Erlyn Apartment” and sold flats to various buyers. Possession was handed over in 1982 after obtaining the occupation certificate. The buyers formed the Erlyn Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., registered on May 11, 1984.

Dissolution and Inheritance: The Pereira Family’s Stake

In 1991, the partnership dissolved via a Deed of Dissolution dated February 19. ABJ Pereira took over as sole proprietor and retained Flats 101, 102, and 111 (on the 11th floor) as his share. Flat No. 111 included an adjacent open terrace, which the family exclusively used.

ABJ Pereira passed away, and his son, Erle Benedict Pereira (the plaintiff), inherited Flat No. 111 through his parents’ wills, becoming the undisputed owner.

The Pivotal 1994 Deed: Covenants That “Run with the Land”

On September 27, 1994, ABJ Pereira (as vendor) and Erlyn Enterprises (as confirming party) executed a registered Deed of Conveyance transferring the land and building to the society. At the time, all available Floor Space Index (FSI) had been fully utilized.

Crucially, the deed included four covenants just before the property schedule:

• (i) If extra/additional FSI ever became available, the vendor (ABJ Pereira) would get about 900 sq ft exclusively, to cover the open terrace adjacent to Flat No. 111.
• (ii) All remaining extra FSI would belong to the society.
• (iii) Four stilt parking spaces would always be the vendor’s.
• (iv) These covenants “shall run with the land,” binding future owners or redevelopers forever.

Individual MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act) agreements with flat buyers (e.g., Clause 43) also disclosed the vendor’s exclusive terrace rights post-conveyance.

For 31 years (1994–2025), the society never challenged these covenants. The Pereiras enjoyed the terrace and parking without objection.

The Redevelopment Spark: Greed Enters the Picture

In 2024, with the building aging, the society explored redevelopment. Under the new Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, Section 33(11) allowed an FSI of 4.05—far higher than in 1994—unlocking significant extra space.

Initial discussions acknowledged the 1994 covenants. On July 2, 2024, a meeting with Erle Pereira led to draft resolutions. A Special General Body Meeting on July 7, 2024, unanimously passed Resolution No. 4, binding the society to the covenants: if extra FSI was available, 900 sq ft would go to Erle.

Minutes were circulated on July 10, 2024 (at 2:36 PM). But within 10 minutes (at 2:44 PM), the Managing Committee unilaterally altered Resolution No. 4, diluting it to a vague promise of future review, removing the clear entitlement.

Escalation and Legal Battle: Society’s Tender Ignores Rights

The society appointed a Project Management Consultant (PMC), prepared a feasibility report, and issued tender documents to developers—omitting any mention of Erle’s 900 sq ft entitlement.

Erle protested via emails, but the society refused to rectify. Two bids were received by mid-2025, ignoring his rights.

In response, Erle filed Suit No. 300 of 2025 in the Bombay High Court, seeking a declaration of his rights under the 1994 deed. He also sought interim relief via Interim Application No. 6603 of 2025 to halt the process.

The Court’s Verdict: A Prima Facie Win for Legacy Rights

Justice Jadhav ruled the covenants valid and binding, running with the land. He criticized the society’s “prima facie dishonest and malafide” conduct in altering the resolution, calling it greed-driven. The judge rejected the society’s MOFA arguments, noting no challenge for 31 years and full disclosure in buyer agreements.

Interim relief was granted: The society is restrained from appointing a developer or advancing tenders without providing for Erle’s 900 sq ft FSI and parking rights.

This ruling underscores that old conveyance deeds can’t be ignored in redevelopments, offering protection to legacy owners amid Mumbai’s building boom.

Also Read: Court Refuses to Stall Khernagar Redevelopment

The post Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Society Redevelopment, Upholds Homebuyer’s Claim to Extra 900 Sq Ft Space: A Must-Read for Flat Owners Facing Rebuilds appeared first on Square Feat India.