A single residential project must have a unified, inclusive association of allottees. Procedural irregularities, failure to notify all stakeholders, and the exclusionary nature of a society toward statutorily mandated social housing unit holders render its registration unsustainable under the law.

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin)

Heard Sri M.S.Srinivasa Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Hirendernath, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Ms.B.Mohana Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4; Sri Pranav Munigela, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Sri T.P.S.Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 14.

This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18220 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as “promotors”) and set aside the registration of the Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant Society”), which was registered under the Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “TMACS Act”), and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to draft bye-laws in accordance with the provisions of the TMACS Act and to submit an application for registration in terms thereof. It was further directed that the funds collected by appellant society shall be kept in a suspense account and shall be returned to the contributors after due deduction of the expenses already incurred therefrom.

Factual matrix

The dispute primarily concerns the governance, administration, and maintenance of a gated residential community project known as “Pristine Estates”, developed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, namely Sri B. Srinivas Rao and Smt. B. Usha Rani, along with other landholders.

On 08.06.2011, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) accorded building permission vide Permit No.2581/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2010 for development of the said gated community. As per the sanctioned layout and building plan, the project contemplated construction of 105 independent villas, together with 6 units earmarked for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and 6 units for Lower Income Group (LIG), in compliance with G.O.Ms.No.528 dated 31.07.2008, which mandates inclusion of all social housing components. The validity of the said building permission was subsequently extended by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.01.2016.

During the period between 2012 and 2014, the promoters alienated several plots in favour of prospective purchasers and entered into independent construction agreements with them. Thereafter, between 2019 and 2023, GHMC issued Occupancy Certificates in respect of 74 villas constructed within the project, including Villa No.67 owned by respondent No.5 herein. However, the project, as a whole, remained incomplete, with several common amenities, including but not limited to the clubhouse and other shared facilities, not having been fully developed, completed, or handed over to the allottees.

On 21.10.2022, the District Co-operative Officer (DCO), Ranga Reddy District (respondent No. 4 herein), registered the appellant society under the provisions of the TMACS Act. The said registration was purportedly granted based on an application dated 10.10.2022 and a verification/inspection report dated 19.10.2022 submitted by the Assistant Registrar.

The formation of the said society was ostensibly undertaken by a section of villa owners on account of the alleged failure and inaction of the promoters in completing the project and in facilitating the formation of an association of allottees. The appellant society claims to consist of 57 members representing 57 villas out of the total 95 villas presently in existence. Significantly, the allottees of the 12 LIG/EWS units (respondent Nos.6 to 14 herein) were neither issued notice prior to such formation nor included as members of the society, thereby raising serious con