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.

In a landmark order that could affect thousands of mixed-use housing projects across Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has ruled that a developer cannot register two separate cooperative housing societies — one for commercial units and another for residential units — unless both are functionally and physically independent.

The Court has also struck down reliance on a 2004 Maharashtra government circular, holding that it has no statutory authority and cannot override the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (MCS Act) or the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).

Case Summary:

Case: Sadguru Universal CHS Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Coram: Justice Amit Borkar
Date of Judgment: November 11, 2025
Filed by: Sadguru Universal CHS Ltd., New Panvel (West), Navi Mumbai
Respondents: State of Maharashtra, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and Sadguru Infra Projects (the builder)

The Dispute:

A single building in New Panvel was constructed with 24 commercial units on the ground floor and 88 residential flats above.
The builder, Sadguru Infra Projects, registered two separate societies — one for commercial and another for residential owners.

The residential society (petitioner) objected, arguing:

• Only one building plan and one Occupancy Certificate were issued by CIDCO.
• Both residential and commercial owners use common passages, terraces, lifts, firefighting systems, and parking areas.
• Two societies would create conflict and violate MOFA, which mandates one collective society.

Key Findings by the High Court:

1⃣ Two Societies Not Allowed Without Real Separation

“The mere fact that some units are commercial and some are residential does not give the promoter a right to form two societies.”

• Separate societies are permissible only if there is clear physical and functional separation — e.g., separate entrances, lifts, utilities, firefighting systems, and maintenance mechanisms.

2⃣ Parameters for Allowing Two Societies

The Court listed mandatory parameters to assess independence:

• Structural Design & Layout
• Separate Entrances and Exits
• Independent Utilities (water, electricity, firefighting)
• Maintenance & Financial Responsibility

Additional parameters include:

• Parking and circulation
• Use pattern (timings and activity interference)
• Legal documents (OC, plan approval)
• Impact on members’ convenience and rights

3⃣ Govt Circular of 2004 Has No Legal Standing

The Court held that the Government Circular dated 30 July 2004, which allowed separate societies for wings or sections, has no statutory force.

“A circular issued by an administrative department does not become law only because it has been issued by a Government officer.”

It was not issued under the MCS Act and not authenticated under Article 166 of the Constitution, so it cannot override the law or curtail citizens’ rights.

4⃣ Matter Remanded for Fresh Inquiry

Both the Registrar and Revisional Authority failed to conduct any ground verification.
The Court set aside both orders and directed a fresh factual inquiry within four months to decide if two societies can truly function independently.

Impact on Developers and Societies:

• Builders can no longer arbitrarily split one building into separate societies to retain control or reduce obligations.
• Residential and commercial unit owners in mixed-use projects will now gain stronger rights under MOFA.
• The judgment redefines the scope of Section 154B-2(4) of the MCS Act — emphasizing functional, not formal, independence.

Expert Quote (Suggested Style):

“This judgment reinforces that MOFA’s purpose is to protect flat buyers — not builders’ convenience. If a structure functions as one building, the law expects one cooperative body,” said a Mumbai-based housing law expert.

Conclusion:

This ruling could reshape how housing societies are formed in Maharashtra — especially across CIDCO, MMRDA, and municipal layouts where commercial and residential units coexist.
It’s a strong message to developers and authorities: registration can’t be a paper exercise — it must reflect ground realities.

The post Bombay High Court Shocker: Builder Can’t Form Two Societies in One Building appeared first on Square Feat India.