Bombay High Court
MR.ASHOK SHETTY AND ORSversusMR. DNYANESHWAR B. KHANDGE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, and the society's registration is not cancelled; the deposited amount may be withdrawn and distributed among the 24 claimants.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the Secretary (Co‑operation)'s order reviving the registration of a cooperative society (Respondent No.5) that had been set aside by the Divisional Joint Registrar on grounds of fraudulent formation. The petitioners, part of a larger group of 33 members denied plot allotment, argued that cancellation of the society's registration was necessary to secure their rights. The court observed that the proper remedy was to seek membership and plot allotment, not to cancel the society after 29 years of operation, and that cancellation would cause chaos. It noted that the deposited amount of Rs.10,00,000 represented contributions of 24 persons and allowed its withdrawal and distribution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, the amount was permitted to be withdrawn with interest for distribution, and the petitioners were directed to pursue appropriate proceedings for plot allotment.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can set aside the Secretary (Co‑operation)'s order reviving the registration of the cooperative society.
- Whether cancellation of the society's registration is an appropriate remedy for the petitioners' grievance of non‑allotment of plots.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the Rs.10,00,000 deposited by the society along with accrued interest.
- Whether the petition remains maintainable after a lapse of nearly three decades.
Subjects
- cooperative society
- registration cancellation
- plot allotment
- writ petition
- revision
- interim order
- membership
- land allocation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:31950
Megha 17_wp_2122_2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2122 OF 2000
Ashok K. Shetty and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Dnyaneshwar B. Khandge since
deceased through his only heir and and
legal representative
1(a) Smt. Sudnyanka Kandge and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. B.K. Bali with Ms. Veena Nair i/b. M/s. Bali & Associates for the
Petitioners
Ms. M.S. Srivastav, AGP for Respondent -State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 31 JULY 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition is >led challenging the order dated 21 January 2000
passed by the Secretary (Co-operation) (the Secretary) allowing the
Revision >led against order dated 12 June 1997 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.D. (Appeal) Mumbai (Divisional
Joint Registrar). The Secretary has set aside order dated 12 June 1997. By
order dated 12 June 1997, the Divisional Joint Registrar had set aside the
registration and certi>cate dated 9 April 1997 in respect of Respondent
No.5-Society.
Page No.1 of 6
31 July 2026
Megha 17_wp_2122_2000
2) Respondent No.5- Society has been registered on 9 April 1997. It
is formed by allottees of the plots. It is the grievance of the Petitioners
that the Society was fraudulently formed and registered by only 12
members without taking on board group of 33 members, of which
Petitioners are a part. Accordingly, registration of the Society was
challenged by the Petitioners before the Divisional Joint Registrar and
they succeeded in setting aside the registration certi>cate dated 9 April
1997 by virtue of order dated 12 June 1997 passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar.In Revision, the Secretary has set aside the order of the
Divisional Joint Registrar. This has resulted in revival of registration of
Respondent No.5-Society.
3) By interim order dated 3 May 2000, this Court recorded statement
made on behalf of Respondent No.5-Society that 74 members were
already allotted plots and construction of houses on said plots after
obtaining development permission was underway. In view of the position
that obtained on 3 May 2000, this Court Court did not stay the order of
the Secretary. However, an undertaking was directed to be >led by
Respondent No.5-Society not to claim equity in respect of the
construction raised by the members on their respective plots and that
such construction would be subject to outcome of this Petition.
Additionally, Respondent No.5-Society was also directed to deposit an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in this Court. Accordingly, an undertaking has
been >led by Respondent No.5 -Society, which has also deposited
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as directed by this Court. The Petition came to
Page No.2 of 6
31 July 2026
Megha 17_wp_2122_2000
be admitted on 17 August 2001. The Petition is called out for >nal
hearing.
4) I have heard Mr. Bali, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Ms. Srivastav, the learned AGP appearing for the
Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.
5) It must be observed that formation of a co-operative Society is
ultimately for collective management of the property and affairs by the
members. Whether Petitioners could have formed their society or
whether contesting Respondents were right in forming Respondent
No.5-Society makes no difference. Ultimately, only one co-operative
Society could have been registered in respect of the plots.
6) Real grievance of the Petitioners, who form part of 33 members, is
non-allotment of plots to them despite acceptance of amount by
Respondent No.1. Mr. Bali submits that Respondent No.1 collected
monies from proposed members and purchased land in his name with
the aim of allotment of land to all 107 members. It is submitted that
Respondent No.1 however allotted plots only to 74 members leaving in
lurch the balance 33 members. It is the contention of the Petitioners that
their proposed society would have comprised 107 members, in which
ultimately only 74 members are admitted. It appears that the Petitioners
had >led proposal for registration of society and it also secured an order
for reservation of name. It is the grouse of the Petitioners that 12
members clandestinely registered Respondent No.5-Society. Thus, the
Page No.3 of 6
31 July 2026
Megha 17_wp_2122_2000
real grievance of the Petitioners is about non-allotment of the plot for
which they ought to have adopted necessary remedies possibly before
the Co-operative Court. Petitioners are denied plots as well as
membership in the Society.
7) In such circumstances, instead of challenging formation of the
Society, it would have been appropriate for the Petitioners to seek
membership of the Society and direction for allotment of plot. It appears
that the Secretary has made an observation in his order that some land
was still left out with Respondent No.1 in which remaining 33 members
could also be allotted plot. However, it appears that no land is available
for allotment of plots to the Petitioners. By now, period of 29 long years
has elapsed since formation and registration of Respondent No.5-
Society. During those 29 years, the members have been managing affairs
of the Society as well as looking after common amenities on collective
basis. If at this stage Society’s registration is cancelled, the same would
result in utter chaos.
8) As observed above, cancellation of registration is sought
essentially for ensuring allotment of plots to 33 members. The correct
remedy in such circumstances was to seek membership to the Society
and allotment of plot from court of competent jurisdiction. True it is that
by interim order dated 3 May 2000 it is ensured that undertaking is >led
by the Society not to claim any equity in respect of the construction
raised by Respondent No.5 Society over the plot in question. However,
after passing of that order, period of 26 long years has elapsed. It is now
too late in a day to examine correctness of the order passed by the
Page No.4 of 6
31 July 2026
Megha 17_wp_2122_2000
Secretary (Co-operation) for the purpose of ensuring cancellation of
registration of the Society. Even if the Petition is to be allowed and
registration of Respondent No.5-Society is cancelled, the same may not
yield a favaourable result for the Petitioners. 74 members are already
occupying plots allotted to them and constructed houses thereon.
Therefore, mere registration of another Society would not create any
land for allotment to the Petitioners. In such circumstances, it is
necessary to give a quietus to the entire litigation. It will be for the
Petitioners and other similarly situated persons to seek appropriate
remedy for allotment of plots if they are so advised. I am therefore not
inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Secretary (Co-operation).
9) At this stage, Mr. Bali submits that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
was directed to be deposited by this Court in pursuance of order dated 3
May 2000. Said amount essentially represents the amounts deposited by
24 persons with Respondent No.1 under a hope of securing allotment of
plots. Individual af>davits of those 24 persons alongwith proof of
payment of amount are >led on record. Mr. Bali submits that deposited
amount alongwith accrued interest be permitted to be withdrawn for the
bene>t of said 24 persons. He makes an earnest request that Petitioner
No.1 be permitted to withdraw the entire amount for the purpose of
distribution thereof amongst 24 members. The suggestion appears to be
fair.
10) Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Writ Petition is dismissed.
Page No.5 of 6
31 July 2026
Megha 17_wp_2122_2000
(ii) Petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire
deposited amount alongwith accrued interest.
(iii) Petitioner No.1 shall distribute the withdrawn amount
amongst 24 persons, who have >led af>davits in the
present Petitions.
(iv) Petitioners would be at liberty to adopt appropriate
proceedings for allotment of plots before the
appropriate forum.
11) With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is
discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.6 of 6
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 31 July 2026
Date: 04/08/2026 15:33:30
Checking your session…