Bombay High Court
SNEHAPRABHA SAHAKARI BHADEKARI MALKI GRUH NIRMAR SANSTHA LTD LATUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHERversusVANMALA SUNIL MALEGAONKAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court upheld the appellate court’s order directing the allotment of the plot to Respondent No.1, finding no error in the earlier judgment.
Summary
The petitioners, a cooperative housing society, challenged an order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court that directed the society to allot a plot to Respondent No.1. They argued that Respondent No.1 had not proved membership and that the sale and membership documents were fabricated, and they raised the issue of limitation and maintainability due to delay. The Court examined the evidence and noted that the membership of Respondents 3 to 25 was admitted, and that an administrator of a cooperative society lacks authority to enroll new members. Consequently, the Court held that the administrator could not validly allot plots to those members, and the appellate court’s findings were reasonable. Finding no perversity in the appellate order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether Respondent No.1 was a valid member of the cooperative society.
- Whether the administrator had the authority to enroll new members and allot plots.
- Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the limitation period and delay.
Subjects
- cooperative society
- membership
- administrator authority
- plot allotment
- limitation
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:712
1 of 3 945-WP-1808-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
945 WRIT PETITION NO. 1808 OF 2020
Snehaprabha Sahakari Bhadekari Malki Gruh Nirmar Sanstha Ltd
Latur Through Its Chairman And Another
VERSUS
Vanmala Sunil Malegaonkar And Others
…..
Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the
order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Member of the
Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench
at Aurangabad, in Appeal No.145 of 2017, whereby appeal filed
by Respondent No.1 came to be allowed thereby directing the
Petitioner-Society to allot one plot to disputant/Respondent No.1.
3. After arguing for some time, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners submits that the learned Member of the Maharashtra
State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at
2 of 3 945-WP-1808-2020
Aurangabad, failed to consider the fact that the
disputant/Respondent No.1 had not proved that she was enrolled
as a member and the sale certificate, membership and related
record were found to be fabricated. He further points out that
although the issue of limitation was raised neither the Co-
operative Court nor the Appellate Court properly addressed the
issue of maintainability on the ground of delay. He further
submits that since Respondent Nos.3 to 25 were enrolled as
members during the tenure of the Administrator/Respondent
No.2, they are legally members and, in fact, their membership was
never challenged on that count. However, the learned Appellate
Court, without considering these aspects, allowed the appeal and
thereby allowing the dispute filed by Respondent No.1.
4. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Co-
operative Appellate Court. Upon detailed consideration of the
matter and the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the issue
of membership was an admitted fact and the same was specifically
recorded by the learned Appellate Court that Respondent Nos.3 to
25 were enrolled as members during the tenure of the
Administrator. It is well settled law that an Administrator has no
3 of 3 945-WP-1808-2020
power to enroll new members. Once the Administrator lacked
such authority, the question of allotment of plots by the
Administrator in favour of Respondent Nos.3 to 25 does not arise.
More particularly, when the record pertaining to membership,
share certificates and payment receipts clearly revealed that the
plot was allotted to disputant/Respondent No.1, any subsequent
change during the period of administration could not be
sustained. All these aspects have been duly considered by the
learned Appellate Court, which has recorded findings that are
reasonable and proper. I, therefore, do not find any perversity in
the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Member of the
Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench
at Aurangabad, in Appeal No.145 of 2017.
5. In view thereof, the petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Sameer
Checking your session…