Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J.
Sadguru Universal CHS Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No.18153 of 2024
Decided On : 11-11-2025
Key Points: - Registration of separate societies for mixed-use buildings is permitted only when genuine functional and physical separations exist (!) (!) (!) . - Mere commercial and residential distinctions do not justify separate societies without independent functioning (!) (!) (!) . - The test for separation is based on factual and functional criteria, including structural design, access points, utilities, and maintenance responsibility (!) (!) . - Authorities must conduct a factual inquiry and cannot rely on internal administrative circulars that lack statutory force (!) (!) (!) . - If separation criteria are not met, the building must be treated as a single integrated unit under one cooperative society (!) (!) . - The rights of flat purchasers under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act must be protected, and common facilities must not be compromised (!) (!) (!) . - The burden of proof lies on the authorities to verify compliance with mandatory parameters before registering separate societies (!) (!) . - The order of the Revisional Authority was set aside for failing to examine factual basis for separate registration (!) (!) . - The matter is remanded for fresh inquiry with a decision deadline of four months (!) (!) . - No order as to costs was made in the writ petition (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of challenge to society registration (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal context and statutory duties of promoters (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. permissibility of multiple cooperative societies (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. requirement for factual examination in cooperative registrations (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. court's decision and remand for inquiry (Para 35 , 36 , 38) |
JUDGMENT:
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. The petitioner housing society challenges the Judgment and Order passed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 confirmed the earlier Judgment and Order dated 8 December 2021 passed by respondent No.2, by which registration was granted to respondent No.4 society.
2. The relevant facts are that respondent No.5 is the promoter. Respondent No.5 submitted a building plan to CIDCO for construction of a single building on Plot No.19, Sector 17, New Panvel (West), District Raigad. CIDCO approved the plan for one building of ground plus thirteen floors. Respondent No.5 constructed twenty-four commercial units on the ground-floor and eighty-eight residential units from the third floor to the thirteenth floor. Construction was completed in the year 2020. The planning authority issued Occupancy Certificate on 24 June 2020.
3. The petitioner states that respondent No.5 submitted a proposal to respondent No.3 for registration of the petitioner society. Respondent No.3, by order dated 8 December 2021, granted registration to the petitioner society. In that proposal, respondent No.5 did not include the purchasers of commercial units. According to the petitioner, during the first general body meeting held after the registration, respondent No.5 disclosed that a separate society had already been registered for the commercial unit holders in the very same building. Respondent No.5 had submitted two independent proposals for registration of two different societies without informing the purchasers of residential units. Out of twenty-four commercial units, respondent No.5 retained ownership of nine units.
4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 8 December 2021 by filing a revision before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, by order dated 27 June 2024, dismissed the revision. Respondent No.1 held that in view of Sections 154B-2(4) and 154B-1(8) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, registration of two societies is permissible. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the authorities committed an error in interpreting Sections 154B-2(4) and 154B-1(8). He submits that the building does not have separate entrance, separate electric cabin, separate firefighting system, or separate exit for two societies. He states that the television antennas of the members of respondent No.4 are placed on the terrace of the petitioner’s building. He further states that air conditioner units of members of respondent No.4 are installed in the common passage of the building where the petitioner’s members reside. According to him, members of respondent No.4 use common passages and common facilities of the petitioner society. He submits that only one building plan was sanctioned for construction of one building consisting of eighty eight residential and twenty four commercial units. He submits that artificial division between residential and commercial units is not permissible. According to him, registration of separate society is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
6. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 submits that the objects and nature of the two societies are different and therefore two independent societies have been registered. Respondent No.4 has proposed formation of an association consisting of both societies. The petitioner society has not agreed to this proposal. He submits that there is an independent lift for the petitioner society and members of respondent No.4 are not using it. He submits that members of respondent No.4 do not use
Court ruled that separate societies for mixed-use buildings are permitted only if substantial independent functioning and separation exist, as required by statutory provisions.
The registration of a Federal Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act must comply with the provisions of both the MCS Act and RERA, and is contingent upon project completion.
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the authority to prescribe a higher number of signatories for registration than the statutory minimum, and such Circulars are enforceable.
Cooperative law permits bifurcation of societies when it enhances member welfare and does not require external approval beyond statutory provisions.
The Competent Authority must properly consider the provisions of the Acts and the validity of the 'deed of Declaration' when deciding on the registration of a housing society.
Promoters must disclose the precise nature of the organization (cooperative society or otherwise) in agreements, and unilateral declarations that lack collective consent do not comply with statutory ....
The court emphasized that registration of a Cooperative Housing Society without following proper jurisdictional authority and principles of natural justice is void ab initio.
A registration order under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act must be reasoned to ensure accountability and compliance with statutory requirements, enabling effective judicial review.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
