Bombay HC Refuses To Cancel 45-Year-Old Housing Society's Registration Over Land Title Dispute

Mumbai, July 4, 2026: The Bombay High Court has refused to cancel the registration of a 45-year-old cooperative housing society, holding that de-registration proceedings cannot be used to resolve land ownership disputes or challenge events that took place long after the society was registered.

Petition Challenged Society Registration

Justice Sandeep Marne on July 2 dismissed a petition filed by Elite Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged the Maharashtra government's decision restoring the registration of Krishna Kunj Cooperative Housing Society in Santacruz.

The company had approached the High Court through Advocates Kishor Patil, Pratik Rahade and Vinod Singh. The society and its members, represented by Advocates Shriram Kulkarni and Minal Chavan, opposed the plea.

The dispute arose after the company sought cancellation of the society's registration, alleging that it had been obtained through misrepresentation in 1981. It claimed that only six flats existed in the building at the time of registration and that four open parking spaces were wrongly shown as garages to meet the minimum requirement of 10 members for registering a cooperative society.

Court Notes Unusual Circumstances

However, the court noted an unusual feature of the case. The company's director, Dr Satish Sharma, is himself a member of the same society and had earlier served as one of its office-bearers.

“The case involves a rather unusual circumstance, where the director of the petitioner-company has sued himself,” Justice Marne observed. “He wears two hats. In his individual capacity, he is a member of the society... but in his capacity as director of the company, he seeks de-registration of the society.”

The court held that the powers under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act are limited and can be exercised only if the society was registered through deliberate misrepresentation. It said later developments, such as title disputes, allegations of illegal construction or rejection of deemed conveyance, cannot be treated as evidence of misrepresentation during registration.

“The misrepresentation must be noticed in the information given while seeking registration,” the court said, adding that it “cannot be assumed on the basis of events occurring subsequent to the registration of the society.”

Title Dispute Cannot Be Decided

Rejecting the company's argument that garage owners could not be counted as members, the court observed that the registration proposal had clearly disclosed that there were six flats and four garages. If the Registrar had wrongly accepted garage occupants as members, it may have been an error of judgment but “cannot be treated as a misrepresentation on the part of the applicants”.

Also Watch:

The court further observed that de-registering the society after 45 years would create unnecessary complications in the management of the building.

“The real motive of the petitioner... is securing title in respect of the land. That dispute cannot be adjudicated in de-registration proceedings,” Justice Marne said while dismissing the petition.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/