The judgment was delivered by Member-2 A. S. Wanve on July 13, 2026, in Appeal No. 36 of 2025, arising out of an order passed by the Co-operative Court, Mumbai, which had earlier refused to grant an interim injunction against the redevelopment.

The dispute involved three members of the society who jointly own Flat No. 201. They challenged several resolutions passed by the society between September 2022 and June 2024 relating to the appointment of Inspira Developers Pvt. Ltd., approval of redevelopment proposals, execution of the Development Agreement (DA), and other redevelopment-related decisions. They sought to restrain the society from implementing these resolutions and from proceeding with redevelopment until the dispute was finally decided.

According to the appellants, the society had violated Section 79A of the MCS Act and the Government Resolution dated July 4, 2019 governing redevelopment of co-operative housing societies. They alleged that the developer was not selected through the prescribed procedure, the mandatory role of the Registrar’s authorised representative was ignored, the meetings lacked proper quorum and procedure, members were not supplied documents and video recordings, and redevelopment was initiated without first obtaining conveyance of the land in the society’s name. They also argued that the society ignored objections raised by several members during various Special General Body Meetings.

The society, however, defended its actions by pointing out that the redevelopment process had commenced as early as October 2021 because the buildings, constructed around 1978, were more than four decades old and urgently required redevelopment. It informed the court that multiple Project Management Consultants (PMCs) and developers had been invited to submit proposals, members had been consulted at every stage, and overwhelming majorities had approved the appointment of Inspira Developers and the redevelopment proposals in successive meetings. The society also informed the court that the Development Agreement had already been executed and registered, creating contractual rights in favour of the developer.

The appellate court examined the voting pattern in the various meetings and noted that 73 of the 78 members present had approved the revised offer of the developer in March 2024. Subsequently, 82 members voted in favour of appointing the developer in April 2024, while 76 members supported the proposal in May 2024. Even after the dispute arose, the society convened another Special General Body Meeting in July 2025 in the presence of a representative of the Deputy Registrar, where 72 members voted in favour of reaffirming the appointment of the developer while only five members opposed it.

The court held that the redevelopment had received overwhelming support from the society’s members and observed that the appellants represented only one residential unit in a society consisting of 109 members. It further noted that the registered Development Agreement had not been challenged separately and that the developer had not even been impleaded as a party to the proceedings, despite rights having already been created in its favour. These factors weighed heavily against granting any interim relief.

A key aspect of the judgment is its discussion on Section 79A. The court relied on earlier Bombay High Court decisions, including Kamgar Seva Sadan vs. Divisional Joint Registrar (2018) and Vilas Vishnu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra (2024), to reiterate that the Government Resolution issued under Section 79A is directory rather than mandatory. In simple terms, this means that the procedural guidelines are intended to ensure transparency and fairness during redevelopment, but every procedural deviation does not automatically render the redevelopment process illegal or invalidate the decisions taken by the society.

What are the Section 79A redevelopment guidelines?

Section 79A empowers the Maharashtra Government to issue binding directions to co-operative societies in matters of public interest. Exercising this power, the State Government issued the redevelopment guidelines, first in 2009 and later through a revised Government Resolution on July 4, 2019.

The 2019 guidelines lay down a structured process for redevelopment. Some of the important requirements include:

• Appointment of an experienced Project Management Consultant (PMC) to conduct the redevelopment process.
• Preparation of a feasibility report before inviting redevelopment proposals.
• Inviting competitive offers from eligible developers.
• Conducting Special General Body Meetings with proper notice and agenda.
• Presence of an authorised representative of the Registrar during crucial redevelopment meetings.
• Transparent evaluation of redevelopment proposals.
• Approval of the selected developer by the prescribed majority of members.
• Circulation of the draft Development Agreement among members before execution.
• Video recording of important redevelopment meetings to maintain transparency.
• Proper documentation of objections and suggestions received from members.

These guidelines were framed to minimise disputes, improve transparency, and prevent arbitrary selection of developers.

Which provisions did the appellants say were violated?

The appellants alleged several departures from the 2019 guidelines, including:

• The developer was allegedly not selected through the prescribed tendering and evaluation process.
• The Registrar’s authorised representative was not present during the meetings in which the developer was selected.
• The Government Resolution dated July 4, 2019 was allegedly not fully complied with.
• Members were allegedly not given sufficient opportunity to study the redevelopment proposal before voting.
• Minutes of meetings allegedly did not properly record proposers and seconders.
• Certain documents, including video recordings of meetings, were allegedly not supplied despite repeated requests.
• Redevelopment was initiated before conveyance issues had been resolved.
• Members’ written suggestions on the draft Development Agreement were allegedly ignored.

However, the court found that these allegations did not justify stopping the redevelopment at the interim stage, particularly because the redevelopment had already advanced substantially, the Development Agreement had been executed and registered, and the society had subsequently conducted another meeting in the presence of the Deputy Registrar’s representative to reaffirm the appointment of the developer.

The court also rejected the argument that redevelopment could not proceed in the absence of conveyance. It observed that the appellants had failed to identify any statutory provision prohibiting redevelopment merely because conveyance had not been completed.

Applying the well-established principles governing interim injunctions, the appellate court concluded that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in their favour, or that they would suffer irreparable loss if redevelopment continued. On the contrary, the court held that granting an injunction would prejudice more than a hundred members waiting for redevelopment of an ageing building.

Consequently, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the earlier order refusing to stay the redevelopment, while directing both parties to bear their own costs.

Also Read: Big Shock for Mumbai Societies: You Cannot Charge Maintenance on Square Feet Basis!

The post Redevelopment Guidelines Under Section 79A Not Mandatory, Appellate Court Reiterates appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2026, Dr. Srishty Neelkanth, Member-1 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, overturned an earlier order of the Co-operative Court, holding that the society had failed to adequately address the member’s repeated complaints despite acknowledging the problem.

How the dispute began

The dispute traces its roots to 2006 when Vishal Co-operative Housing Society undertook major structural repairs to its H-Wing, a building that was over three decades old.

The repairs included structural strengthening, terrace waterproofing, civil repairs, plumbing, painting, replacement of pipelines, repairs to lifts, electrical work, water tanks, rainwater harvesting and other infrastructure improvements.

The society collected contributions from all 28 flat owners towards the project. The appellant, Mr. Indravadan Chimanlal Shah, who owns Flats No. 603 and 604 on the top floor directly beneath the terrace, contributed over ₹1.52 lakh towards the repair work.

According to the judgment, the repair contract executed on December 2, 2006, carried a 10-year guarantee for the works, including terrace waterproofing.

Leakage complaints started after repairs

Mr. Shah alleged that while carrying out repairs on the RCC slab, the existing waterproofing layers were damaged, resulting in heavy leakage into both his flats situated directly below the terrace.

He claimed the leakage caused extensive damage to:

• False ceiling
• Electrical fittings
• Fans
• Tube lights
• Spotlights
• Paint
• Furniture and fixtures
• Ceiling structure

He maintained that poor quality waterproofing work weakened the ceiling and led to continuous cracks and seepage.

Society repeatedly informed

The appellate court noted that Mr. Shah continuously approached the society seeking corrective action.

The judgment records that he sent written complaints to the society on:

• June 27, 2009
• September 5, 2009
• October 15, 2009
• November 13, 2009
• December 2, 2009

When the society failed to act, he also approached the Assistant Engineer, Building and Factory Department of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on January 31, 2011.

Society acknowledged leakage—but shifted responsibility

One of the crucial pieces of evidence relied upon by the appellate court was the society’s own letter dated March 2, 2011.

The court observed that the letter clearly acknowledged that Mr. Shah had repeatedly complained about ongoing water leakage.

However, instead of carrying out repairs itself, the society advised him to:

• appoint a licensed waterproofing contractor,
• obtain the required BMC permissions,
• execute an agreement with the contractor,
• and bear the cost initially, with the society agreeing to reimburse only 50% of the expenses.

Mr. Shah rejected the proposal.

He informed the society that the terrace was common property belonging to the society and that the damage had occurred because of defective workmanship during the society’s own repair project, which was covered by a 10-year guarantee.

He also demanded copies of the structural stability certificate and BMC permissions and warned that the society would be responsible for any accident arising from continued leakage.

Society defended repair work

Before the Co-operative Court, the society argued that:

• the terrace waterproofing had been completed successfully in May 2007,
• pond tests had confirmed there was no leakage,
• a structural stability certificate had been issued in May 2008,
• the repairs were carried out under qualified engineers.

The society further alleged that Mr. Shah himself had:

• merged two flats without permission,
• installed a permanent false ceiling,
• prevented engineers from inspecting the RCC slab,
• failed to cooperate during inspection.

According to the society, these actions prevented it from carrying out internal repairs.

Trial Court dismissed the dispute

The Co-operative Court dismissed Mr. Shah’s dispute in August 2023.

The Trial Court accepted the society’s contentions that the member had failed to establish negligence and had not proved that the society was responsible for the damage.

It also held that he had failed to establish the amount of compensation claimed.

Appellate Court found serious errors

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court disagreed with the Trial Court’s approach.

One of the most significant findings was that although the society had filed a written statement, it failed to prove any of its allegations.

The appellate court noted that:

• none of the respondents entered the witness box,
• no documentary evidence was produced,
• the society did not cross-examine Mr. Shah,
• and ultimately even its arguments were closed before the Trial Court.

As a result, Mr. Shah’s affidavit remained completely unchallenged.

The appellate court held that the Trial Judge committed an error by relying heavily on mere pleadings contained in the society’s written statement instead of legally admissible evidence.

The judgment observed that while the society had made several allegations against Mr. Shah, it had failed to substantiate them through evidence despite being granted numerous opportunities.

Court accepted member’s evidence

The appellate court held that Mr. Shah had successfully established that he had continuously approached the society seeking repairs.

The numerous notices placed on record reflected the persistent leakage problem and demonstrated that the society had failed to provide effective relief despite being aware of the issue.

The court specifically observed that the correspondence showed “the plight of a senior citizen” who continued to suffer because of the leakage without receiving any meaningful response from the society.

The court further held that since terrace waterproofing formed part of the society’s repair project covered by a 10-year guarantee, Mr. Shah was fully justified in approaching the society for rectification.

Why the court did not award full damages

Although the appellate court accepted Mr. Shah’s grievance, it declined to award the entire amount claimed by him.

Mr. Shah had sought compensation towards:

• repair expenditure,
• contributions paid,
• damage to furniture,
• electrical fittings,
• false ceiling,
• and other losses.

However, the court found that he had not produced sufficient documentary proof such as bills, invoices or evidence showing the exact value of the damage.

Consequently, the court held that the precise monetary loss could not be quantified.

Court presumed mental agony and hardship

Despite the absence of documentary proof regarding the exact financial loss, the appellate court observed that the surrounding circumstances clearly demonstrated prolonged hardship.

The court held that a senior citizen had suffered persistent leakage in his residence, repeatedly approached the society for assistance and still did not receive an effective solution.

It observed that under such circumstances, it could reasonably be presumed that he had suffered physical inconvenience, mental agony and financial hardship, making him entitled to compensation.

Court criticised prolonged delays

The appellate court also made strong observations regarding the manner in which the litigation progressed.

It noted that the dispute had been instituted in 2012 but the Co-operative Court delivered its judgment only in 2023.

The appeal itself was finally decided in 2026.

After examining the roznama (daily proceedings), the appellate court observed that the respondents were not serious in prosecuting their defence.

The court specifically recorded that repeated adjournments were taken by the respondents, resulting in considerable delay in disposal of the matter.

This conduct was one of the factors considered by the appellate court while deciding to award compensation to the member.

Final Order

Allowing the appeal, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court:

• Set aside the Co-operative Court’s judgment dated August 28, 2023.
• Directed Vishal Co-operative Housing Society to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to Mr. Indravadan Chimanlal Shah.
• Awarded interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the dispute until actual payment.
• Directed both parties to bear their own litigation costs.

The judgment reiterates that housing societies cannot ignore persistent complaints relating to common areas such as terraces and that allegations made in pleadings must be supported by evidence. It also underscores that prolonged inaction and repeated delays in litigation may weigh against societies while courts determine appropriate relief for aggrieved members.

Also Read: Society’s No to Commercial Use Binding: Court Stops Flat Owners from Conversion

The post Housing Society Ordered to Pay ₹2 Lakh to Member Over Terrace Leakage appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgment in Writ Petition No. 8889 of 2024 was delivered by Justice Amit Borkar, dismissing a petition by the Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. that sought to stop a member’s challenge from proceeding in the Co-operative Court.

Background: What Was at Stake?

The petitioner society had sought dismissal of a dispute filed by its member, Jitendra Kumar Jani, before the Co-operative Court No.3, Mumbai. The society argued that the dispute involved issues of building redevelopment which, according to it, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court.

In response, the member had filed a dispute — challenging the manner in which general body meetings were conducted and resolutions were passed relating to redevelopment. The society then applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for the dispute to be summarily rejected at the outset.

Although the Co-operative Court initially dismissed the society’s application, the society appealed. The Appellate Co-operative Court upheld the member’s dispute. Aggrieved, the society approached the High Court.

Court’s Core Finding: Jurisdiction vs Maintainability

At the heart of the High Court’s decision was a fundamental legal principle:

Jurisdiction (power to hear a case) must be distinguished from maintainability (whether a particular dispute can proceed).

The court emphasized that:

• A Co-operative Court’s jurisdiction arises only from statute.
• Order VII Rule 11 CPC allows a complaint to be rejected at the threshold only if a statutory bar is plainly visible from the complaint itself.
• A dispute cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage if its resolution depends on examining documents, bye-laws, evidence, or facts outside the pleadings.

Justice Borkar noted that the society’s argument required examining the society’s bye-laws and resolutions, which were not part of the dispute application. Since this analysis depends on evidence, it cannot be done at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11.

Chapter XIII-B and 2019 Amendment: No Automatic Bar to Dispute

The petitioner society relied on the 2019 amendment to the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, which expanded the definition of a housing society to include demolition and reconstruction activities.

However, the High Court clarified:

• This definition is enabling, not mandatory.
• Section 154B(31) contains a saving clause confirming that existing bye-laws continue in force until expressly amended.
• Therefore, redevelopment does not automatically become part of every society’s “business” simply because of the amended statutory definition.

The court ruled that whether a society’s objects include redevelopment depends on examination of its actual bye-laws and resolutions, a task requiring trial and evidence.

General Body Resolutions Within Co-operative Court’s Domain

The society also contended that redevelopment decisions were beyond the Co-operative Court’s jurisdiction. The High Court disagreed, holding:

• A member can challenge conduct of general body meetings and resolutions under Section 91 of the Act.
• These disputes clearly fall within the statutory framework of the Co-operative Court.

The court further noted that decisions of lower courts had conflated jurisdiction with maintainability, which led to incorrect reasoning.

Order and What Happens Next

The High Court dismissed the society’s writ petition, meaning:

• The dispute will continue in the Co-operative Court.
• The member’s challenge will be heard on its merits, including scrutiny of bye-laws and resolutions.
• The society’s objections will be part of trial arguments, not grounds for premature dismissal.

Why This Ruling Matters

This judgment has significant implications for society members and redevelopment disputes:

• Societies cannot block member disputes merely on technical grounds.
• Jurisdictional arguments cannot be used to shut out cases without factual examination.
• Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be misused to avoid trial where evidence is required.
• Members have a robust avenue to challenge general body decisions, including redevelopment resolutions.

Legal experts say this decision reinforces the principle that procedural shortcuts cannot replace a full hearing on merits, especially in matters where bye-laws, resolutions, and factual contexts are central.

Also Read: MHADA issues Tender for Abhyudaya Nagar Redevelopment

The post Redevelopment Disputes Can’t Be Thrown Out Without Trial: Bombay High Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case shatters a long-held belief in housing societies that “one member can’t do much against a powerful committee.”
This judgment proves otherwise.

The Case That Changed the Power Equation in Housing Societies

The case arose from Brahma Suncity Co-operative Housing Society in Pune, where a member repeatedly asked the Managing Committee for copies of meeting minutes — a basic right guaranteed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Despite multiple written requests over several months, the committee failed to provide the documents.

What followed was not just a fine or warning — but the complete removal of the committee and a five-year ban from contesting society elections.

A Simple Request That Snowballed into Major Consequences

The member first sought the minutes in January 2023 and clearly stated he was ready to pay the required copying charges.
However:

• The committee did not respond meaningfully
• It did not even inform him of the fee amount for months
• Multiple reminders were ignored

Eventually, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a formal order, directing the committee to supply the documents within seven days.

That order was also ignored.

Court Says: Transparency Is Not Optional

The High Court made it clear that supplying society records is not a favour, but a statutory duty.

The Court observed that:

• Every member has a legal right to inspect and obtain copies of records
• Silence or delay defeats the very purpose of the law
• A committee cannot hide behind technical excuses like “fees were not paid” when it never communicated the fee details

Late compliance, the Court said, does not wipe out months of non-compliance.

Why the Entire Committee Was Disqualified — Not Just One Office Bearer

A key argument raised by the committee was that, at most, only one office bearer (such as the secretary) should be blamed.

The Court rejected this.

It held that:

• The Managing Committee functions on collective responsibility
• Minutes are records of the committee’s own decisions
• If no member ensures compliance, the entire committee is accountable

As a result, all committee members were held responsible and disqualified together.

Five-Year Ban Upheld as Fully Justified

The law allows a five-year disqualification for such violations.

The Court noted that this was not a minor lapse:

• The delay lasted several months
• Registrar’s directions were disobeyed
• Documents were given only after legal action began
• There were already findings of financial loss to the society, with a recovery certificate issued earlier

In this background, the Court ruled that the maximum statutory punishment was justified.

Administrator Appointment Also Confirmed

Along with disqualification, the Registrar had appointed an Administrator to run the society.

The High Court upheld this decision, stating that:

• Continued mismanagement
• Proven financial irregularities
• And deliberate non-transparency

made government intervention necessary to protect the society and its members.

Why This Judgment Matters for Every Flat Owner

This ruling sends a strong message across Maharashtra:

• One aware member is enough to enforce accountability
• Managing Committees cannot suppress information
• Ignoring even a single member’s lawful request can have serious consequences
• Transparency is the foundation of cooperative governance

The judgment decisively overturns the notion that “majority silence makes the committee untouchable.”

The Bigger Message

This is not just a case about meeting minutes.

It is a reminder that co-operative societies belong to their members — not their committees.

And sometimes, one ordinary member is all it takes to make the system work.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Rules BMC Permission Not Required for Tenantable Repairs

The post One Common Member, One Request — and an Entire Society Committee Is Removed for 5 Years appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, delivering the judgment, upheld concurrent findings of the Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar that Sippy, as the nominee and legal heir of his late mother, Katy Sippy, is entitled to the membership linked to Unit B-1, a basement premises in the building.

Background of the Dispute

The building—constructed in 1963—contains a basement and nine floors. Unit B-1 was purchased by Sippy’s father, Gopal H. Sippy, in 1963. He was admitted as a society member and, upon his death, the membership shifted to his wife, Katy Sippy, based on nomination. She, in turn, nominated her son Ramesh Sippy before her death in 2007.

Despite seven applications between 2016 and 2021, the society repeatedly failed to grant him full membership, arguing that the basement unit was meant only for storage and therefore not eligible to carry membership rights.

High Court’s Findings

The Court rejected the society’s position, observing that:

• The society had itself admitted both Gopal and Katy Sippy as members on the strength of the same basement unit.
• It cannot now reverse its stance and deny membership to Sippy on the ground that a basement is not eligible.
• Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act creates a mandatory duty for societies to transfer share, right, title, and interest to a deceased member’s nominee or heir.
• The society’s discretion is extremely limited in cases involving death-based transfers.

The Court noted that any alleged misuse of the basement—as a godown or office—can be dealt with separately but is not a valid ground to deny membership.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the society’s writ petition and confirmed that Ramesh Sippy must be admitted as a member, as no competing heir had raised any claim and all statutory conditions were satisfied.

Also Read: This Housing Society Lost Its Registration, Read To Know Why?

The post High Court Asks Society to Admit Film Director Ramesh Sippy as Member appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that housing society committees cannot be removed arbitrarily by cooperative department officials, reaffirming that strict compliance with due process is mandatory before taking such drastic action.

Delivering judgment in Jijau Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Justice Amit Borkar quashed the Deputy Registrar’s order that had removed the managing committee of the Jijau Cooperative Housing Society and appointed an administrator in its place.

Background: Committee Removed Without Consultation or Hearing

The controversy began when the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, invoked Section 78A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to dissolve the elected managing committee and install an administrator, citing alleged mismanagement.

However, the committee members challenged the order in the High Court, contending that it was issued without giving them an opportunity to respond and without consulting the federal society, both of which are mandatory preconditions under Section 78A.

They further argued that there was no evidence or inquiry report substantiating the charges of mismanagement or misconduct.

Court’s Findings and Observations

Justice Borkar noted that the supersession of a democratically elected managing committee affects the rights of members and cannot be taken lightly.

He observed:

“Supersession of an elected managing committee affects the democratic functioning of cooperative societies. Therefore, strict compliance with the statutory procedure under Section 78A is not optional but mandatory.”

The court held that the Registrar’s order suffered from procedural lapses, as it lacked prior consultation with the federal society and did not record sufficient reasons or evidence to justify the committee’s removal.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed both the supersession order and the appellate authority’s confirmation, reinstating the society’s elected committee.

Implications for Housing Societies Across Maharashtra

This ruling serves as a strong precedent protecting the autonomy of cooperative housing societies.
Legal experts believe it sends a clear message that Registrar-level officials cannot invoke Section 78A casually to remove elected bodies without following the law to the letter.

The judgment is expected to safeguard hundreds of managing committees in Maharashtra that often face sudden administrative interventions, ensuring that democratic functioning within housing societies remains intact.

Also Read: Bombay High Court: Flat Buyers In Redevelopment Project Can’t Claim Rights Against Society After Developer’s Termination

The post 📰 Housing Society Committees Cannot Be Removed Arbitrarily by Cooperative Officials: Bombay High Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in Writ Petition No. 13544 of 2025 (Baltazar Fernandes & Ors. vs Deputy Registrar of Societies, H-West Ward & Ors.), heard by Justice Amit Borkar.

Case Background

The petition was filed by Baltazar Fernandes & Ors. challenging the authority of the District Deputy Registrar, H-West Ward, who had issued a “No Objection” for the society’s redevelopment. The petitioners argued that neither the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 nor its Rules empower the Registrar to issue such NOCs. The Bombay High Court examined the legal provisions and government resolutions to determine whether the Registrar has any role in approving redevelopment decisions.

General Body — Not Registrar — Has Final Say

The Court examined the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and the Rules, 1961, and observed that there is no provision anywhere in the law that empowers the Registrar to grant “No Objection” for redevelopment.

• The decision to redevelop a building is entirely within the powers of the General Body of the society, taken in accordance with the society’s bye-laws and the Government Resolution (GR) dated July 4, 2019.
• Once a valid resolution is passed by the General Body, it binds all members.
• If any member has objections to the process, their remedy lies in approaching the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, not in seeking intervention from the Registrar.

Registrar’s Role is Supervisory, Not Decisive

The Court clarified that the Registrar’s role is limited to overseeing the process to ensure transparency, not to approve, modify, or veto redevelopment decisions.

As per the 2019 GR:

• The Registrar must appoint an Authorised Officer to attend the Special General Meeting (SGM) where the developer is selected.
• The Authorised Officer is only required to observe proceedings, check quorum, and ensure proper documentation.
• Societies must submit notices, agenda, and minutes to the Registrar within 15 days, purely for record-keeping.

Importantly, the absence of any Registrar-issued NOC cannot invalidate the redevelopment process once the General Body has followed the law.

Court’s Directions to the State

The Court has directed the Commissioner of Cooperation and the Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, to issue a state-wide circular to all Registrars:

• Stop issuing or insisting on “No Objection” letters for redevelopment proposals.
• Stick to the supervisory role as outlined in the GR — appointment of officers, ensuring meetings are recorded, and maintaining transparency.
• The circular must be uploaded on the Department’s website, and compliance has to be filed in court.

What This Means for Housing Societies

For thousands of housing societies stuck in red tape, this ruling offers a clear legal pathway to proceed with redevelopment without bureaucratic delays caused by Registrars demanding unnecessary NOCs.

• Societies no longer need to wait for Registrar’s “permission” once their General Body has approved redevelopment in line with legal procedures.
• This is expected to fast-track stalled redevelopment projects, especially in Mumbai’s older suburbs where many buildings are in urgent need of reconstruction.
• It also provides legal clarity, protecting societies from arbitrary demands by officials.

Key Takeaways

• Registrar has no power to issue “No Objection” for redevelopment.
• General Body is supreme decision-making authority.
• Registrar’s role is supervisory, not adjudicatory.
• Government to issue statewide circular instructing Registrars accordingly.
• A big relief for housing societies facing bureaucratic hurdles.

Also Read: Court Refuses to Stall Khernagar Redevelopment

The post Housing Society is the Boss: Bombay HC Strikes Down Registrar’s Role in Redevelopment NOCs appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by Dr. Mumtaz H. Khoja against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and Pioneer India Developers Pvt. Ltd., imposing a cost of ₹5 lakh on her and initiating contempt proceedings for deliberately suppressing material facts and misleading the court.

The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata delivered the judgment on October 16, 2025, in Review Petition No. 18 of 2025, observing that the petitioner had tried to obtain multiple benefits under a slum rehabilitation scheme by concealing key information and presenting false claims.

Background: Petition on Rehab Allotment and Arrears of Rent

Dr. Khoja had initially filed Writ Petition No. 773 of 2023, seeking directions to the SRA and the developer to:

• Allot her a rehabilitation residential tenement under the relevant slum scheme, based on her eligibility as reflected in Annexure-II.
• Grant her arrears of rent for temporary transit accommodation from 2009 onwards.

She claimed that despite repeated requests, no rehab tenement was allotted to her even though allotment to other eligible slum dwellers had started.

The High Court dismissed her writ petition in February 2024. Later, the Supreme Court, on August 23, 2024, granted her liberty to file a Review Petition, which led to the current proceedings.

Petitioner’s Argument: “Room G3 Was Wrongly Shown as My Transit Accommodation”

Through her counsel, Advocate Aseem Naphade, the petitioner argued that the developer had made false claims in its affidavit, stating that temporary accommodation had been provided to her in Room G3, Building A/1/4.

According to her, Room G3 was allotted not to her but to a Trust (Maulana Azad Social & Cultural Association Sanskar Urdu High School), which appeared separately in Annexure-II for a non-residential structure.

She maintained that she had a separate residential entitlement, and that the authorities failed to verify these claims earlier. She also argued that she was entitled to both a residential and a commercial tenement.

Respondents’ Stand: “She Suppressed Facts and Occupied Three Structures”

The developer and SRA presented a very different picture. Their counsels argued that Dr. Khoja had suppressed material facts:

• She had control over three separate structures in the slum — one residential, one clinic, and one school — totalling over 2,200 sq. ft..
• She had already been allotted:
  • Room G3
  • Room G6
  • Temporary premises in Building D1
  • A commercial shop (No. 46) as far back as 2006.

Despite this, she did not vacate one of the rooms, filed multiple petitions, and presented herself as a helpless senior citizen.

Court’s Findings: “Clear Suppression, Misrepresentation and Abuse of Process”

The High Court, after reviewing documents from the SRA, the developer, and the petitioner, made strong observations:

1. Deliberate Suppression:
   • She concealed her occupation of multiple premises and filed two separate petitions to appear as two different entities — herself and the Trust — when she was actually the Chairperson of the Trust.
2. False Narrative:
   • She claimed to live at the mercy of her parents, but records showed she was a practicing doctor, occupying significant property in a prime location.
3. Fabricated Evidence:
   • The court described some documents, such as receipts issued to unnamed individuals for “poultry songs,” as bogus and concocted.
4. No Grounds for Review:
   • She introduced new facts and documents at the review stage, which the court found impermissible. No error apparent on the earlier judgment was found.

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008), reiterating that litigants invoking Article 226 jurisdiction must be truthful and disclose all material facts. Any suppression or manipulation can lead to dismissal and contempt.

Orders Passed: Heavy Cost, Recovery, and Contempt Notice

The Court dismissed the Review Petition with costs of ₹5 lakh, to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks.

If she fails to pay, the Collector, Mumbai, has been directed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, attach and sell her properties, and transfer the recovered amount to the fund.

Additionally, the Court has issued a show cause notice asking Dr. Khoja to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against her for misleading the court. The notice is returnable on November 13, 2025.

BMC and SRA Ordered to Probe How School Was Run in Slum

The Court also directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and SRA to conduct an inquiry into how the Trust headed by Dr. Khoja was allowed to run a school for 150 students in a slum structure without verifying permissions or fire safety NOCs.

The bench expressed concern that such unauthorised activities jeopardised the safety of children and indicated lapses in regulatory oversight.

Also Read: Willingdon View Building: Bombay High Court Orders Evacuation of Floors 17 to 34 Over Fire and OC Violations

The post 🏛 Bombay High Court Slams Dr. Mumtaz Khoja for Suppressing Facts in SRA Case; Dismisses Plea, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost appeared first on Square Feat India.

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S. Chavan, in a judgment dated 22 September 2025, set aside the 2010 vesting order passed under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the 2024 rejection order by the Ministry of Home Affairs, in the case of Lotus Classique Housing Society vs Union of India.

Timeline of Events

1944–1971: Legitimate Ownership & Development

• Land at Vidyanagar, Margao (Survey No. 157/4) was purchased in 1944.
• In 1969, the property was transferred by gift deeds to Badruddin Hussenbhai Mavani, who was born in Goa in 1923.
• He executed powers of attorney in 1970 and 1971 in Goa, authorising subdivision and sale.
• Town planning approvals followed, and between 1977 and 1981, multiple registered sale deeds were executed for the subdivided plots.

1997–2010: CEPI Steps In Based on Local Complaints

• In 1997, CEPI issued notices under Section 11 of the Enemy Property Act after receiving a local complaint claiming Mavani had migrated to Pakistan.
• On 8 October 2010, CEPI declared the property as “enemy property” under Sections 5 and 24, relying on old letters and hearsay — not official records.

2020–2024: Owners Fight Back

• The housing society filed a representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs in September 2020, attaching birth certificates, sale deeds, and development records proving ownership.
• On 12 November 2024, the Ministry rejected the representation, citing the 2017 Amendment and Validation Act, which retrospectively nullifies transfers of enemy property.

2025: High Court Strikes Down the Orders

• The Court found no documentary proof that Badruddin Mavani was a Pakistani national between 11 September 1965 and 18 December 1971 — the critical vesting window under the Defence of India Rules.
• Local reports and vague references to a case in Pakistan were deemed insufficient.
• The bench held that without establishing enemy nationality, the Custodian had no jurisdiction to vest the property.
• The Court also noted violations of natural justice, as the 2010 order was passed without giving current owners a fair hearing.

Why This Ruling Matters

1. Burden of Proof on Govt:
   The State must prove enemy status with credible records — not hearsay or complaints.
2. 2017 Amendment Not a Blanket Shield:
   The Court clarified that the Amendment doesn’t fix a jurisdictionally defective vesting. If the original declaration is flawed, it can be struck down even today.
3. Ripple Effect:
   Many properties across Goa, Mumbai, and other states were declared “enemy properties” decades ago using vague reports. This judgment gives affected owners a clear legal path to challenge such declarations.
4. Real Estate Clarity:
   For homebuyers and societies living under CEPI claims, this judgment restores ownership certainty and could trigger re-examination of archival CEPI lists.

The Court’s Stand

“Merely on an assumption that the holder of this property had migrated to Pakistan and just because there is a citation in the law report in his name, is not a proof that Badruddin was a Pakistani National… it cannot form the basis of declaration of the subject property as Enemy Property.” — Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Rules in Favor of Adani, Rejects UAE Firm’s Plea

The post 📰 Hearsay Can’t Make You Pakistani: Bombay HC Quashes Enemy Property Tag appeared first on Square Feat India.

Delivering its verdict in a batch of civil appeals filed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), the apex court overturned a series of High Court and lower court rulings that had directed the state to allot residential plots to oustees under a 1992 rehabilitation policy.

“We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition, the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable,” the Court observed in its judgment dated July 14.

The ruling came in response to numerous landowners from Haryana who claimed they were entitled to subsidised residential plots under the 1992 HUDA oustee policy after their land was acquired for urban development projects in Kaithal and other areas. Many of them had approached civil courts seeking mandatory injunctions, arguing that denial of alternative plots violated their constitutional right to livelihood.

Policy, Not Entitlement

The Court emphasized that rehabilitation benefits are policy-driven, not constitutional mandates. The 1992 oustee policy was found to be an executive scheme requiring landowners to apply in a prescribed format along with a 10% earnest money deposit. The Court noted that most claimants did not comply with these essential conditions.

“No enforceable right can be claimed under an administrative policy unless all its terms are strictly met,” the bench stated.

It was also revealed that several allottees had filed civil suits years after the policy was introduced, without fulfilling basic procedural requirements such as formal application and deposit of earnest money. Despite this, many suits were decreed by civil courts, and confirmed by the High Court — prompting HUDA to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

High Court Rulings Overturned

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the landowners, relying on precedents like Brij Mohan vs HUDA and Jarnail Singh. However, the Supreme Court held that these judgments were not directly applicable in the present case due to material differences in facts, especially the non-compliance with eligibility criteria.

The bench also noted that the High Court had not adequately examined whether the claimants had submitted valid applications or fulfilled the conditions of the 1992 policy.

No Vested Rights in Welfare Schemes

The Court clarified that no vested rights arise merely from the existence of a policy. A claimant becomes eligible only upon full compliance. It further rejected the use of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (which deals with mandatory injunctions) to enforce discretionary government schemes.

The Court warned against treating welfare policies as enforceable rights, stating that such an approach could lead to “windfall gains” and distortion of the policy framework.

Current Policy to Apply

The judgment also highlighted that HUDA had since introduced a new oustee policy in 2016 (amended in 2018), under which fresh claims could be assessed. The apex court endorsed the authority’s stand that any future claims must be processed under the latest applicable policy, not older ones.

Implications of the Judgment

• Landowners cannot claim alternative plots or rehabilitation as a matter of right after land acquisition.
• Article 21 cannot be stretched to demand policy-based welfare measures.
• Courts cannot force allotments unless all policy conditions are fulfilled.

A Clear Message

This verdict sends a strong signal to both litigants and lower courts: government welfare policies are not enforceable rights unless backed by statutory provisions or fully met conditions. The Court’s unambiguous interpretation of Article 21 in the land acquisition context provides much-needed legal clarity.

Also Read: This Supreme Court Judgement is Very important for Homebuyers & Builders as well

The post Rehabilitation After Land Acquisition, Not a Fundamental Right, Says Supreme Court appeared first on Square Feat India.