SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Harish Commercial Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd
VERSUS
Varsha Dinesh Joshi
Decided no: DECEMBER 1, 2005

Headnote:Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 23 - Registrar’s powers under - Whether he can cheque validity of submitted documents - Held - Section 23 does not empower Registrar to decide validity of documents as it is for Judge, Civil Court and not for Registrar to check validity of submitted documents. - The jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 23 does not extend to determine the validity and/or otherwise the documents which are already executed in favour of the concerned person because that is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and if any person raising any challenge to the said agreement is required to file appropriate civil suit. Prima facie in this case the respondents have got an agreement in their favour and also permission in their favour from the BMC for the purpose of constructing the said property. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the petitioner that the respondents are not entitled to be the member because they are not entitled to be the member because they are unlawful and unauthorised occupier of the said construction cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, petition fails. The order passed by the Division Joint Registrar is confirmed. However there shall be no order as to costs.

       Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 154 - Seem revisionary jurisdiction - Revision exercised once only - Section 154 or any other provision nowhere provides for second revision. - The provisions of Section 154 do not give a concurrent jurisdiction to the Registrar and the State Government because the words prescribed thereunder are "the State Government or the Registrar may call for and examine the records." The wording in that section by substitution of the word "or" in place of "and" is materially significant because in case where the word "and" is used is a conjoint power conferred both on the Registrar as well as the Government whereas the word "or" indicates that it is the power conferred on ’either’ or ’or’ in such cases the power cannot be exercised by both but it can be exercised by one of the two and in that view of the matter, the contention that by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2005) 2 SCC 334 all the Single Judge’s judgments of this Court interpreting the very Section 154 are not deemed to be impliedly overruled. Thus, the contention that the order passed by the Secretary holding that the second revision is not maintainable is bad in law is rejected. The order passed by the Secretary holding that the second revision is not maintainable is upheld.

( 1 ) THE present petition raises an issue whether under the provisions of section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960 a power can be exercised to entertain second revision application. Before I deal with the aforesaid issue for the purpose of narration, few facts of the present case are necessary which are briefly enumerated as under:-

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered cooperative society of a commercial premises situated at 205/206, S. V. Road, Andheri (West), Bombay-50.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondents before this court are the encroachers upon the open space of the society and have illegally and unlawfully built bakdas in the said premises and now seeking to be made as member of the petitioner society.

( 4 ) ON 05-08-1978 some persons including one Mr. Bitesh S. Sagar and Nanji devji Shah representing themselves as Chief promoter of the proposed Co-operative housing Society namely. Harish Premises Cooperative Housing Society (proposed) purchased the said plot of land and thereafter with the sanction of the corporation constructed a building. It is the case of the petitioner that in the construction of the building the entire FSI of the said plot was consumed. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondents are infact the encroachers upon the property of the petitioner society and have carried out various illegal construction. Alternatively it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents do not have any sanctioned plan for the construction of their Bakdas on the said open plot of land.

( 5 ) THE respondent nos. l to 6 are claiming to be the owner of the shops/bakdas in the premises of the petitioner society. They are in possession of the agreement of sale executed by the builder Bitesh S. Sagar who was also the Chief Promoter of the petitioner society prior to its incorporation. The builder has entered into an agreement sometime in or about 1981 when the petitioner society was yet not incorporated. The petitioner society has been incorporated only in the year 1985. Under the said agreement for sale the said builder has sold the open space in the compound of the building for the purpose of putting up the shop. The area which has been sold is 65 sq. ft. on the northern side of the building known as haresh Premises Co-operative Housing society. The Respondents have constructed the shop premises with the prior permission of the corporation much prior to the formation of the society i. e. in the year 1983-84. The corporation has granted the permission in the year 1983 by a letter dated 27-08-1983 for the construction of the shop premises. In the permission it has been mentioned that the premises were actually situated on the road and they are affected by set back due to widening at Dawood Baug Road, Andheri. In the letter dated 27-10-1983 the corporation has accepted the request of the petitioner to allow them to put a shop/bakda in the said open space of the premises of the petitioner society which they have purchased under the said agreement for sale since their structure was affected by virtue of set back for the road widening project. The respondents are in possession of the said shop for almost 25 years. Immediately on a society being incorporated the respondents who are not permitted to be joined as members of the society raised an issue that they should be added as members of the petitioner society. On 18-07-1985 they gave notice through their advocates that the respondents be made the member of the said proposed society at that point of time. Subsequently respondents applied for a membership on 11-01-2001. The said membership has been rejected by the petitioner society on 18-01-2001. Being aggrieved by the said order they preferred an appeal under Section 23 before the Divisional joint Registrar and by an order dated 21-10-2001 the application of the respondent has been rejected and the decision of the society not to make him the member has been upheld. And by orde







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top