Bombay High Court

NARENDRA CHADDA AND ANRversusTHE HONBLE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CS AND ORS

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Divisional Joint Registrar erred in setting aside the Deputy Registrar’s order; the order granting membership to the petitioners for unit 1A is confirmed.

Summary

The petitioners purchased three auctioned units, including unit 1A, and sought membership in a co‑operative society. The Deputy Registrar, invoking Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, ordered the society to grant membership for unit 1A, which the society complied with. Respondent No.3 later withdrew his objection and admitted the petitioners' title, but the society, in a revision, claimed unit 1A was a non‑existent encroached area and sought to set aside the Deputy Registrar’s order. The Divisional Joint Registrar entertained this objection and set aside the earlier order, despite the revision being filed by Respondent No.3, not the society. The High Court held that the Divisional Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to overturn the Deputy Registrar’s order when the revision applicant did not seek such relief and that the society could not raise new objections after complying with the order. Consequently, the court set aside the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order and confirmed the Deputy Registrar’s order, allowing the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar had jurisdiction to set aside the Deputy Registrar’s order in a revision filed by a party who did not seek its reversal.
Whether the co‑operative society could raise objections concerning the legality of unit 1A after having granted membership pursuant to the Deputy Registrar’s order.
Whether the mortgage creation and title acquisition disputes affect the petitioners’ right to membership under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 22(2)

Subjects

co-operative society membership
mortgage dispute
revision jurisdiction
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
encroachment
deputy registrar order
divisional joint registrar

Judgment

Neeta Sawant 16-WP-6307-2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 6307 OF 2026

Narendra Chadda & Anr. …..Petitioners
: Versus :
The Hon’ble Divisional Joint
Registrar, CS & Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. Aseem Naphade with Mr. Santosh Thakur, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Shraddha Chavan i/b. Mr. Mahendra Agvekar, for Respondent No.4-
Society.
Ms. Anjali Purav, AGP for State.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 29 AUGUST 2026
P.C :
1) By this petition, Petitioners have challenged order dated 30
May 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai in Revision Application No.
112/2023. The Divisional Joint Registrar has set aside the order dated 18
January 2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar directing grant of
membership in faovur of the petitioners in respect of Unit-1A.

2) I have heard Mr.Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Ms. Chavan, appearing for the State.

3) It appears that Respondent No.3 had created mortgage in
respect of three units viz, unit no.1, unit no.1A and unit no.2 in favour of
the bank. On account of default committed by Respondent No.3 in
repayment of loan, the bank auctioned all the three units and Petitioners

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NOS. 1 of 4
Saturday, 29 August 2026
Neeta Sawant 16-WP-6307-2026.docx

have purchased all the three units vide Sale Certificate dated 4 August
2005.

4) After having purchased the three units in auction,
Petitioners applied to the 4 th Respondent-society for admitting them as
members in respect of all the three units. The society accordingly
admitted Petitioners as members qua unit nos.1 and 2. However, in
respect of unit no.1A, Respondent No.3 raised an objection that he had
never mortgaged the said unit and that the said unit no.1A has not been
sold to the Petitioners. Therefore, the society apparently withheld grant
of membership in favour of the Petitioners qua unit no.1A. This required
Petitioners to approach the Deputy Registrar by filing Appeal under
Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS
Act) for securing membership qua unit no.1A. The Deputy Registrar
rejected the objection of Respondent No.3 about non-creation of
mortgage in respect of unit no.1A and allowed the Appeal by order dated
18 January 2023. The Deputy Registrar directed the society to grant
membership to Petitioners qua unit no.1A as well.

5) The society apparently had no qualms about the order dated
18 January 2023 and complied with the same granting membership to
Petitioners in respect of unit no.1A.

6) Respondent No.3 got aggrieved by order passed by the
Deputy Registrar and preferred revision before the Divisional Joint
Registrar. During pendency of revision, disputes got settled between the
Petitioners and Respondent No.3 and consent terms came to be filed
before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 14 May 2025. Respondent No.3

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NOS. 2 of 4
Saturday, 29 August 2026
Neeta Sawant 16-WP-6307-2026.docx

admitted valid acquisition of title in respect of Unit No.1A by the
Petitioners.

7) The Divisional Joint Registrar took up Revision Application
No.112/2023 for decision. However, it appears that the 4 th Respondent-
Society filed additional written submissions on 16 May 2025 and in a
Revision filed by Respondent No.3, sought to agitate its own grievance
that unit no.1A is a non-existing and encroached property. Respondent
no.4-society contended that unit no.1A forms part of common area and
has been encroached upon earlier by Respondent No.3 and now by the
Petitioners. The Divisional Joint Registrar got swayed by the said
objection raised by the 4th Respondent-society and ignored the position
that the Revision was filed by Respondent no.3 and not by the society.
Entertaining the objection of the society, the Divisional Joint Registrar
has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar.

8) Perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar
would indicate that his attention was apparently invited to the fact that
membership qua unit no.1A has already been granted in favour of the
Petitioners by the society. If society had any objections about legality of
construction in respect of unit no.1A, why it obeyed the order of the
Deputy Registrar dated 18 January 2023 by grant of membership in
favour of the Petitioners is difficult to comprehend. More importantly,
Respondent No.3 has been a member qua unit no.1A since the year 2002.
The society had not challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar
on 18 January 2023 and the order was in fact implemented. In a Revision
filed by Respondent No.3 questioning creation of mortgage in respect of
Unit no.1A, it is not open for the 4th Respondent-society to agitate its

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NOS. 3 of 4
Saturday, 29 August 2026
Neeta Sawant 16-WP-6307-2026.docx

grievance with regard to the legality of the structure. Respondent No.3
was actually attempting to oppose grant of membership in respect of unit
no.1A by contending that he never created mortgage in respect thereof
and that he continued to remain in exclusive possession thereof.
However, during pendency of the Revision, Respondent No.3 gave up his
objection and admitted valid acquisition of title in respect of Unit No.1A
by the Petitioners. In such circumstances, it was not open for the 4th
Respondent-Society to raise objections regarding legality of structure of
Unit-1A.

9) The Divisional Joint Registrar has grossly erred in
entertaining the objection raised by the Respondent in the Revision for
the purpose of setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar
when the Revision Applicant before him did not want the order to be set
aside. The impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar
suffers from gross jurisdictional error and deserves to be set aside.

10) Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Order dated 30 May 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar is set aside.
(ii) Order dated 18 January 2023 passed by the Deputy
Registrar is confirmed.

11) Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. there shall be no
order as to costs.

Digitally

NEETA
signed by
NEETA
SHAILESH
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.31
14:54:47
+0530

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NOS. 4 of 4
Saturday, 29 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…