The court affirmed that flat purchasers have the statutory right to form a co-operative society independent of any existing company, as mandated by the MOFA Act.

JUDGMENT:

1. By the present Writ Petition, invoked under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, who are purchasers of premises in a building constructed and developed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short, "MOFA Act"), have assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 10 of the said Act, whereby a co-operative housing society of flat purchasers has been registered.

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, as set out by the petitioners, are briefly enumerated herein below for the sake of clarity and completeness:

3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3– Company became the owner of the immovable property bearing C.T.S. Nos. 15, 16 and 16(1), admeasuring in aggregate 780.60 square metres, situated at Sion-Trombay Road, within the revenue limits of Village Deonar, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai, together with the building and superstructures standing thereon. It is submitted that under the Articles of Agreement dated 1st June 1982, respondent No.3–Company conferred development rights in respect of the said property upon M/s. Creative Builders, a proprietary concern engaged in the business of construction and development (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer").

4. Pursuant to the said development agreement, the Developer was authorised and entitled to construct a residential building on the said land and to enter into agreements for sale of individual flats with prospective purchasers. It is further the case of the petitioners that under the terms and conditions of such agreements executed between the Developer and the flat purchasers, a specific stipulation was incorporated requiring the purchasers to become members of respondent No.3–Company. Clause 37 of the said agreement, in particular, obligated each purchaser to execute and sign such applications, forms, declarations, papers, and documents and to do all acts, deeds, and things as may be necessary or required for the purpose of acquiring membership of respondent No.3–Company.

5. It is submitted that on the strength of the said development agreement, the Developer undertook construction of a building known as "Meghdoot" on the suit property, and upon allotment and occupation of the respective flats, the purchasers were inducted as members of respondent No.3–Company. The petitioners, in particular, purchased shares along with rights in the flat from the predecessor-in-title on 29th December 2006 and, accordingly, claim to be members of respondent No.3–Company by virtue of such purchase.

6. On or about 5th March 2024, certain flat purchasers preferred an application bearing No.6 of 2024 before the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, seeking registration of a co-operative housing society under the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. By an order dated 28th March 2024, the said authority, upon consideration of the application and the documents placed on record, was pleased to allow the said application and granted registration to the newly formed society, now arrayed as respondent No.4 herein.

7. Aggrieved by the said decision of the District Deputy Registrar, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal before respondent No.1, challenging the order of registration of respondent No.4–Society. However, vide order dated 11th March 2025, the said appeal came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the registration of the said society. Being dissatisfied with the impugned appellate order and the consequential registration of respondent No.4–Society, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate reliefs.

8. The substratum of the grievance raised by the Petitioners is as follows:

(a) That the Petitioners had entered into agre