Mumbai, Dec 06: In a significant ruling aimed at curbing manipulation of membership in housing societies, the Bombay High Court has held that no cooperative housing society can grant membership for premises that are not shown as independent flats in the sanctioned building plan.
Court Sets Aside Orders in Malboro House Membership Dispute
The court has set aside two administrative orders that had allowed such membership in Malboro House Cooperative Housing Society in South Mumbai. It held that the authorities failed to verify whether the premises purchased by the applicant existed as an independent flat in the sanctioned building plan.
Petitions Filed Over Membership of 250 Sq Ft Unit
The court passed the order while deciding two petitions filed by society members Uday Dalal, Ajay Biyani and Rina Pritish Nandy, challenging the admission of Prachi Agarwal as a member based on a 250 sq ft structure described variously as a servant room, guesthouse or flat.
Justice Amit Borkar Faults Authorities for Lack of Verification
Justice Amit Borkar, on Friday, held that authorities failed to perform the mandatory verification of the sanctioned plan before granting membership under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Petitioners Allege Illegal Splitting of Flat for Voting Advantage
The petitioners argued that the disputed premises were always part of Flat No. 1 and were being “illegally split” to create new memberships that would alter voting strength within the society.
They relied on a 2008 order and municipal assessment entries recording the structure as a servant quarter, and alleged fabrication of documents, including a gift deed and an undertaking, to falsely present it as a separate flat. They further contended that the Administrator appointed during internal disputes lacked authority to process membership or transfer requests.
Respondents Claim Unit Was Independent and AGM Approved Membership
The respondents, including the society, argued that the premises formed independent outhouse units with separate access and sanitary facilities, satisfying the statutory definition of a flat.
They also pointed out that the Annual General Meeting on September 30 had approved Agarwal’s membership, asserting that the petitioners therefore had no locus (legal standing) to challenge it.
Court Rules Sanctioned Plan is Final Authority
Rejecting these contentions, the court stressed that the sanctioned plan is decisive. “The physical existence of a room does not make it an independent flat,” Justice Borkar observed. “The society has no power to alter those limits. The Registrar cannot ignore them. And the general body has no authority to validate an act that is contrary to them.”
Authorities Ignored Plan — Core Procedural Lapse, Says HC
The court noted that both the Deputy Registrar and the revisional authority relied on inspection reports and assessment entries but did not examine the sanctioned plan—a “material omission” that “strikes at the root of the decision.”
Also Watch:
Registrar Directed to Re-Verify Plans and Decide Membership Afresh
Setting aside the orders, the court directed the Deputy Registrar (D-Ward) to obtain and compare the approved building plan and any sanctioned modifications within four weeks. If the premises were part of an existing flat with no sanctioned alteration, the membership “shall not be recognised.” If shown as an independent flat, fresh orders may be passed. The exercise must be completed within 12 weeks, after granting both sides a hearing.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
