Rights to Common Road in Society Layout

Overview

The question pertains to the rights of a society in a layout regarding the use of a common road, specifically whether the society has an undivided half share in that road or merely a right to use it.

Key Legal Principles

1. Common Areas and Rights of Use:
2. In a cooperative housing society, common areas, including roads, are typically designated for the use of all members. The rights to these areas are often defined in the society''s bylaws and the layout plan approved by the relevant authorities.

3. The legal documents indicate that common areas, including roads, must remain accessible for the use of all members and cannot be restricted unilaterally by any party Raymond Limited VS New Sarnath Co-Op. Hsg. Society Limited - Bombay.

4. Undivided Shares:

5. The concept of undivided shares implies that co-owners have a collective interest in the property, which cannot be divided without mutual consent or legal proceedings. A co-owner cannot sell or transfer more than their share without the agreement of other co-owners Ramdas VS Sitabai - Supreme Court00100027885.

6. In the context of a layout, if the road is designated as a common area, it is not subject to individual ownership but rather shared use among all members of the society Anar Devi VS Parmeshwari Devi - Supreme Court.

7. Legal Precedents:

8. Courts have upheld that common areas in a layout, such as roads, must be maintained for public use and cannot be claimed as private property by any individual or entity Sakthi Co-operative Industrial Estate VS Kursheed Begum - Supreme CourtMazda Construction Company VS Sultanabad Darshan CHS - Bombay.
9. The Transfer of Property Act stipulates that any agreement that restricts the use of common property is void if it contravenes the rights of co-owners Raymond Limited VS New Sarnath Co-Op. Hsg. Society Limited - Bombay.

Relevant Findings from Legal Documents

• Common Terrace and Recreational Spaces: The plaintiffs in a related case argued that the common terrace and recreational spaces belong exclusively to the society, and any clause restricting access to these areas was deemed void Raymond Limited VS New Sarnath Co-Op. Hsg. Society Limited - Bombay.
• Public Access: An order mandated that roads and open spaces in a layout must remain open for public use, reinforcing the idea that such areas cannot be privately owned or restricted PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PMRDA) VS PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH - Supreme Court.
• Undivided Interests: A co-owner''s ability to sell or transfer property is limited to their undivided share, emphasizing that no single co-owner can claim exclusive rights over common areas Ramdas VS Sitabai - Supreme Court00100027885.

Conclusion and Recommendations

• The society in question likely has the right to use the common road but does not possess an undivided half share in it. The road is intended for the collective use of all members, and any attempt to restrict access would be legally challenged.
• It is advisable for the society to ensure that its bylaws clearly define the rights to common areas and to seek legal recourse if any member attempts to impose restrictions contrary to these rights.

References

• Raymond Limited VS New Sarnath Co-Op. Hsg. Society Limited - Bombay
• Ramdas VS Sitabai - Supreme Court
• 00100027885
• PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PMRDA) VS PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH - Supreme Court
• Sakthi Co-operative Industrial Estate VS Kursheed Begum - Supreme Court
• Mazda Construction Company VS Sultanabad Darshan CHS - Bombay]