The court ruled that individual members of a cooperative society relinquish their independent rights, and actions must be carried out by the society itself regarding disputes and claims.

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to set aside the conversion of use of ‘amenity plots’ to ‘residential cum commercial’ permitted by the Konkan Housing & Area Development Board (‘KHADB’-Respondent No.1 herein) in a Housing Project at Ratnagiri.

1.1. Consequently, it also seeks to set aside the decisions of the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat Kuwarbav, dated 24^th May, 2010 and 20^th November, 2010, granting permissions to the purchaser of these two amenity plots for construction.

Brief facts:

2. In October, 2005, the KHADB proposed development of a residential project in Ratnagiri called ‘Ratnagiri-Kuwarbav’ and advertised for sale of plots for Bungalows, Row-houses and Residential Complex. The three Petitioners herein are residential plot-purchasers in this project. In 2009, the plot-purchasers formed a co-operative society in the name of Sankalppurti Co-operative Housing Society, (“Society”) which now consists of 115 members.

2.1. As per the layout plan of Kuwarbav project, shown to the Petitioners, the two plots bearing Nos. A-1 and A-2 were designated for amenities (“the two amenity plots”).

3. Mr. Raut, learned counsel representing the Petitioners, argued that Respondent No. 8, the treasurer of Society, had purchased the two amenity plots and constructed commercial cum residential units despite being aware that the two plots were reserved for amenities. Furthermore, he criticized the inaction of the relevant Authorities, who permitted change of land use despite repeated complaints by the Petitioners. He contended that Respondent No. 8 having purchased the two amenity plots from KHADB through the tender process, which was notably for construction of amenities, ought not to have been permitted to change the land use to construct commercial cum residential premises instead of amenities such as Hospital, Police Station, Medical Center, Post-office which are significantly lacking in this project area and are critical for the community.

4. Mr. Ghumre, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 asserts that KHADB has disposed of the amenity plots in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. He contends that Regulation 5 authorizes KHADB to dispose of any vacant land or plot designated for non- residential purpose in an approved layout. He further emphasizes that Regulation 3 provides for such disposal.

4.1. Mr Ghumre acknowledges that, the tender form used during the sale of plots was inadvertently incorrect. He points out that the construction on the plots was completed in 2006, whereas the Petition has been filed after a delay of seven years. He submits that if there were any grievance, it should have been raised by the Society itself rather than by individual members. On this ground alone, he argues, the petition deserves dismissal.

4.2. He asserts that an amenity plot can be used for various purposes, including commercial or for shopping areas, as well as for Post Office. He further emphasizes that the Gram Panchayat had earmarked the plots for “commercial shopping” in its layout plan somewhere around 18^th to 28^th November 2000. Addressing the Petitioners’ contention, he submits that, the assumption that these plots were required to be handed over to the society for use as open grounds or for other society related purposes is contrary to the approved proposal for the use of amenity plots.

4.3. Mr Ghumre also highlights the requirement under the regulations that 5% of the total layout must be allocated for amenities and 10% for recreational areas, amounting to 15% of the entire layout being set aside for these purposes. He points out that