Bombay High Court
FORTUNE GARDEN CO OP HSG SOC LTD THR ITS CHAIRMANversusTHE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Divisional Joint Registrar failed to conduct a proper inquiry and did not provide a fair hearing, rendering his order unsustainable.
Summary
The petitioner, Fortune Garden Co‑Op Housing Society Ltd, challenged an order of the Divisional Joint Registrar that set aside a district registrar's decision to register the society, on the ground that the registrar had not properly examined the objections to the society's formation. The building in question contains both rehabilitation‑type tenements and sale‑type flats, with the latter owners seeking to form a society and the former opposing it. The registrar relied on a notice showing 87 objections, but the petitioner argued that the notice was defective and that the actual number of opposing owners was far lower, raising doubts about compliance with section 154B‑2, which requires more than 51% support for registration. The court found that the registrar had conducted a perfunctory inquiry, failed to address discrepancies in the objection list, and did not afford a proper hearing. Consequently, the court set aside the registrar’s order and remanded the appeal for fresh adjudication with a requirement to grant a hearing to all parties. All substantive merits were left open for determination on remand.
Issues considered
- Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar complied with the procedural requirements of section 154B‑2 of the Co‑operative Societies Act in assessing support for the registration of the housing society.
- Whether the registrar conducted a proper inquiry and afforded a fair hearing to the parties before setting aside the district registrar's order.
Legislation cited
- Co-operative Societies Act — s. 154B-2
Subjects
- co-operative housing society
- section 154B-2
- registration of society
- fair hearing
- remand
- appeal
- rehab component
- sale component
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:33972
Renuka 13-WP-10373-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10373 OF 2026
Fortune Garden Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd Thr ...Petitioner
Its Chairman
V/s.
The Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors ...Respondents
________________
Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar i/b Mr Bhushan U. Deshmukh for Petitioner.
Mr. Satish Muley with Mr. Mosin Naik with Aaron Dias for Respondent
No. 5.
Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 17 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 29
July 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Mumbai Division, Mumbai (Divisional Joint Registrar) allowing Appeal
No. 138 of 2026 filed by the 34 Appellants, who are contesting
Respondents in the present Petition. The Divisional Joint Registrar has
set aside order dated 20 April 2026 passed by the District Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai directing registration of a Co-
operative Housing Society. The Divisional Joint Registrar has remanded
the proceedings to the District Deputy Registrar for a fresh consideration
and decision on merits in accordance with law.
Page No.1 of 4
17 August 2026
Renuka 13-WP-10373-2026.docx
2) I have heard Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, Mr. Muley the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 5 and Mr. Kankal, the learned AGP appearing for
Respondent-State.
3) It appears that the building is constructed by the developer
by redeveloping the old structures. The building comprises of rehab
component tenements as well as sale component flatss. It appears that
there are two factions in the building. The society is formed at the behest
of the faction representing sale component owners. It appears that rehab
component owners are opposed to formation of the society of the sale
component owners.
4) Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar would indicate that he has recorded following findings:-
As As per the provision of section 154B-2, out of the total flats/units
in the building, more than 51% of the members of the registered
agreement have to join the registration proposal. However, in the
present case, it appears that out of 163 member's 87 members of the
society had opposed the formation and registration of the proposed
society. Therefore, the provisions of section 154B-2 are being not
complied.
5) The above findings recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar
appears to be perverse to the core. According to Mr. Muley there are 78
rehab component tenements in the building. This is disputed by Dr.
Warunjikar, who submits that there are only 70 rehab tenements in the
building. Even if the contention of Mr. Muley is accepted that there are
78 rehab tenaments in the building, it is beyond comprehension as to
Page No.2 of 4
17 August 2026
Renuka 13-WP-10373-2026.docx
how 87 flat owners would have opposed formation of the society by the
Petitioners. Mr. Muley places reliance on a notice attached at Exh-C to
the Appeal filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar to demonstrate
signatures of 87 flat owners. However, upon being queried as to whether
any sale component owner has joined the opponents, there appears to be
no clarity. There also appears to be some discrepancies in the document
being notice dated 29 November 2025. To illustrate, Serial Nos. 48 and 50
are blank. Similarly, at Serial Nos. 42 and 43, same person has apparently
signed. Prima facie therefore it becomes difficult to believe there are 87
objectors to the formation of the society. On the other hand, it is seen
that the proposal submitted for registration of the society had signatures
of 86 flats owners. Mr. Muley has submitted that 10 out of the said 86
signatures are put by the same person. However, the Divisional Joint
Registrar has not recorded any such finding. He has blindly accepted the
notice dated 29 November 2025, which itself appears to be a suspicious
document.
6) In my view, therefore, the Divisional Joint Registrar has not
conducted a proper inquiry into the Appeal. The inquiry conducted by
the Divisional Joint Registrar appears to be perfunctory. In that view of
the matter, the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The proceedings deserve to be
remanded to the Divisional Joint Registrar for fresh adjudication.
7) At this stage, Mr. Muley submits that his clients have already
preferred a revision against order dated 29 July 2026 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar alleging non-grant of hearing. Since the order
Page No.3 of 4
17 August 2026
Renuka 13-WP-10373-2026.docx
of the Divisional Joint Registrar is being set aside by remanding the
proceedings, the revision would be rendered infructous. This way even
the contesting Respondents would receive opportunity of hearing
8) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Order dated 29 July 2026 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar is set aside. Appeal No. 138 of 2026 is
remanded to the Divisional Joint Registrar for decision
afresh.
(ii) The Divisional Joint Registrar shall accord due
opportunity of hearing to the rival parties before
adjudicating the Appeal afresh.
9) All contentions of parties on merits are expressly kept open.
10) Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed and disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 17 August 2026
Date: 18/08/2026 14:08:07
Checking your session…