2026 Supreme(Bom) 511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J.
Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar - Petitioner
Versus 
The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Cooperation – Respondent 
WRIT PETITION NO.11982 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.29872 OF 2025, WRIT PETITION NO.11988 OF 2025
Decided On : 03-02-2026

Quasi-judicial authorities must adjudicate prior flat purchasers' application under MOFA Section 10(1) proviso before permitting promoter's subsequent proposal steps, avoiding fait accompli and ensuring fairness, land verification, signature authenticity.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 - Sections 4, 10(1) first proviso, 11 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Formation of cooperative society - Promoter delayed formation beyond prescribed time - Flat purchasers held meeting, appointed chief promoter, filed prior application for registration - Pendency brought to notice of authorities - Subsequent proposal by promoter allowed to open bank account and secure registration without deciding prior application - Prior application rejected relying on such permission - Held, quasi-judicial authority must first adjudicate earlier pending application before entertaining subsequent proposal - Cannot create fait accompli by permitting consequential steps favoring later proposal - Violates natural justice, fairness; dilutes statutory remedy for purchasers - Land area in promoter proposal substantially reduced without inquiry - Affidavits alleging fraudulent signatures ignored without verification - Promoter's initial right not absolute post-default - Orders quashed; prior application restored for fresh merits-based decision including signature authenticity, land extent verification. (Paras 20-32, 33-37, 38-43, 44-49)

(B) Quasi-judicial authorities - Duty of fairness - Must avoid predetermining outcome of pending claim; sequence of competing proposals critical - Earlier prima facie valid claim demands priority examination. (Paras 20-25)

(C) Cooperative society registration - Disputes on chief promoter appointment, majority support, fraud - Authority to verify signatories' status, signatures via documents, affidavits; not mere numbers. (Paras 38-43)

(D) Land area determination - Agreements cover larger area; proposal reducing it prima facie requires scrutiny of plans, permissions to ensure society vests full entitled property. (Paras 33-37)

Facts of the case:
Land under agreements executed under Section 4 covered 26,000 sqm; construction permission 2015, agreements 2015-2021. Promoter failed to form society timely. Purchasers' meeting 26 Feb 2025 appointed chief promoter; application filed 12 Mar 2025 before District Deputy Registrar. Notice to promoter. Representation to Assistant Registrar of pendency. Promoter's agent filed proposal 13 May 2025 claiming chief promoter; despite objections, bank account permission 9 Jun 2025; purchasers' application rejected 17 Jun 2025 relying thereon; registration granted 18 Jun 2025 to promoter's proposal covering only 7,903.86 sqm. 84 affidavits alleging fraud in signatures/meeting. Appeals/revision dismissed.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed; prior application restored to District Deputy Registrar for fresh decision within 8 weeks on merits, considering competing proposal, affidavits, verifying signatures, purchasers' status, land area via documents. Bank account transactions frozen pending; no further steps on registration. Original record to disciplinary authority within 4 weeks for probe into Assistant Registrar's conduct per principles in cited Supreme Court case.

Issues: Priority between prior purchasers' application under Section 10(1) proviso and subsequent promoter proposal; propriety of granting bank permission/registration sans deciding pendency; reduction in proposed society land area; authenticity of signatures/majority claim amid fraud allegations; promoter's obligation vs purchasers' statutory right.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of prior statutory application by purchasers post-promoter default mandates its merits-based adjudication first; authorities breach fairness by favoring later proposal via permissions creating fait accompli, rejecting earlier on that basis. Must inquire land extent, signature genuineness before registration; promoter right yields to proviso remedy. Result : Writ petitions allowed; orders set aside, matter remanded with directions.