Bombay High Court

HITEN P SHAH AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided: 18 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Deputy Registrar’s direction to treat the flats as two separate flats in accordance with the sanctioned plan is upheld.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a ministerial order that dismissed their revision application and upheld earlier orders directing the cooperative society to treat certain flats as two separate units, as per the sanctioned development plan. The court noted that the flats, though marketed as 3 BHK, were originally sanctioned as two distinct flats, and under Section 154B‑5 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the society's membership must correspond to the number of flats. The Deputy Registrar’s direction to treat the flats as two units was therefore deemed correct. The petitioners' suggestion that an amalgamation proposal before the municipal corporation could later alter membership was acknowledged but not deemed a basis to overturn the existing orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioners free to seek revised municipal plans and to raise limitation defenses if maintenance charges are demanded before the Deputy Registrar’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the Deputy Registrar’s direction to treat the flats as two separate flats complies with Section 154B‑5 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Whether the petitioners can challenge the direction on the ground that an amalgamation proposal before the municipal corporation may later affect membership.
Whether the petitioners can invoke limitation if the society demands maintenance charges prior to the Deputy Registrar’s order.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154B-5

Subjects

Cooperative Society
Membership
Flat amalgamation
Maintenance charges
Section 154B‑5
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
Revision application
Limitation

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                              35-WP-6226-2026


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 6226 OF 2026

Hiten P Shah and Ors.                                ...Petitioners

                     V/s.

State   Of    Maharashtra        Through
Secretary and Ors.                                   ...Respondents
                                ________________
Ms. Manjiri Parasnis a/w Ms. Shrushti Kale and Ms. Samiksha lokhande,
for Petitioners.
Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                ________________

                                           CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                           DATED: 18 AUGUST 2026


P.C.:


1)          The Petitioner challenges order dated 10 September 2025 passed
by the Hon’ble Minister dismissing the Revision Application No. 198 of
2025 preferred by the Petitioners and confirming the orders dated 27
January 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and 16 March 2021
passed by the Deputy Registrar. By the impugned order, the Deputy
Registrar has directed to treat the flats in accordance with the sanctioned
plan for purpose of levy of maintenance and other charges.


2)          I have heard Ms. Parasnis, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioners, Mr. Alaspurkar, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-

                                    Page No.1 of 2
                                   18 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                                  35-WP-6226-2026


State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. There is
no dispute to the position that the concerned flats, though are shown as
3 BHK flats, are sanctioned in the development permission as two
separate flats. Under Section 154B-5 of the Maharashtra Co-opertaive
Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act), the membership of the Society needs to be
equal to the number of flats in the building. In that sense, the Deputy
Registrar has rightly directed the Society to treat the flats as two flats
rather than treating the same as one flat.


3)          Ms. Parasnis submits that proposal is submitted before the
Municipal Corporation for amalgamation of the flats. As and when such
amalgamation is sanctioned, necessary changes can always be effected
by the Society in respect of the membership. As of now, the originally
sanctioned plan operates. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference
in the impugned orders.


4)          The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the
Petitioners to seek revised plans from the Municipal Corporation. As and
when the plans are revised by Municipal Corporation, the Society shall
effect necessary changes in its membership register. In the event Society
makes demand for maintenance and other charges prior to the passing of
the order by the Deputy Registrar, the Petitioners would be at liberty to
raise the issue of limitation.




                                                      [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]


                                     Page No.2 of 2
                                    18 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…