The Registrar's jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is limited to determining eligibility based on objective facts, excluding complex disputes regarding ownership or membership transfer.

JUDGMENT:

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution. He challenges the order of Respondent No.5. By that order, Revision Application No.458 of 2018 confirmed order dated 15 September 2018 passed by Respondent No.4 directing the name of Respondent No.1 be entered as a member of Respondent No.2 Society in place of the petitioner.

2. The facts are these. Respondent No.1 filed an application on 20 January 2018 before the Assistant Registrar. He sought deletion of the petitioner’s name and substitution of his own name in the membership records of Respondent No.2 Society. He stated that his predecessor in title, late Natu Ambarsingh Patil, was a founder member of the Society. He had been allotted Share Certificate Nos.146 to 150. Natu Patil died on 16 August 1981. Respondent No.1 claimed that the names of Natu Patil’s legal heirs were never entered in the society records. He asserted that Natu Patil had never surrendered his membership. He further stated that the original share certificates were never supplied to Natu Patil. The name of Natu Patil nevertheless appeared in the preliminary voters list during the 2017 elections of the Society.

3. Respondent No.1 asserted that the petitioner knew that Respondent No.1 was the legal representative of late Natu Patil. Despite this, the petitioner got his own name entered in the records by deleting the name of the deceased member. Respondent No.1 submitted that, being the legal heir of late Natu Patil, his name must be entered in the records as member. He alleged that the Chairman of Respondent No.2 Society was a close relative of the petitioner. According to him, the Chairman and the petitioner acted in collusion to transfer the share certificates illegally in favour of the petitioner. He claimed that the transfer was without legal basis and therefore void.

4. The petitioner opposed the application. He contended that Respondent No.1 never obtained a legal heirship certificate. He submitted that the entry of the name of deceased Natu Patil continued in the records due to incorrect information. He denied the allegation that Respondent No.1 was not residing in Mumbai. He submitted that the original member, Natu Patil, had transferred his membership to the petitioner on 12 December 1976. He stated that Natu Patil never disputed this transfer during his lifetime. He pointed out that Respondent No.1 approached the authority after an unexplained delay of 42 years. He stated that the incorrect entry in the provisional voters list of 2017 had already been corrected on 12 December 2017. The petitioner’s name thereafter appeared in the final voters list.

5. The petitioner further submitted that the original member had sold his membership rights to him on 12 December 1976. He had signed the membership application forms. After the submission of these forms, Share Certificate Nos.146 to 150 were transferred to the petitioner. The Managing Committee resolved on 19 December 1976 to confer membership on the petitioner. He stated that after membership was conferred, he paid Rs.6,600 for construction to the Society during 1976 to 1978, and the Society issued receipts to him. He stated that he served as a Managing Committee Member between 1989 and 1993. In an election dispute before the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court, he was recognised as such. He therefore sought dismissal of Respondent No.1’s application.

6. The Registrar heard both sides. The Assistant Registrar directed that the name of Respondent No.1 be entered in the Society records. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision. The Revisional Authority upheld the order of the Assistant Registrar. It confirmed that membership must be conferred on Respondent No.1. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court by way of the present petition.

7. Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that Respondent No.1 has not produced any evidence to establish that he is a legal heir of the