As per case facts, members of a de-registered Co-operative Society appealed against the de-registration order, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Minister. The de-registration was initiated by the original developer, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6144 OF 2026
Uday Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Mr. Paresh Satyendra Vohra & Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Raghav Dharmadhikari i/by Adv. Akshay D. Shukla, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Surel S. Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandesh Deshpande i/by
Adv. Prithviraj Sanjay Gole for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent - State
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Resd. On: 29 July 2026.
Judgment Pron. On: 05 August 2026.
JUDGMENT :
THE CHALLENGE:
1) By this Petition, the Petitioners, who are members of a de-
registered Co-operative Society, have challenged order dated 23 June
2025 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Co-operation) dismissing Appeal
PAGE NO. 1 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
No. 565 of 2024 and con�rming the Order of de-registration dated 15
July 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Konkan Division, Mumbai (Divisional Joint Registrar). By his Order
dated 15 July 2024, the Divisional Joint Registrar has allowed Application
No. 15 of 2020 �led by Respondent No.1 and has directed cancellation of
registration granted to Hatkesh Udyog Nagar Industrial Premises Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. (Society) vide Certi�cate dated 11
November 2008. The Divisional Joint Registrar has also directed the
Registrar to appoint an Of�cial Assignee in respect of the Society under
Section 21A(2) and (3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act,1960 (MCS Act).
FACTS:
2) Land bearing Survey No.94 admeasuring 1 Hectare 56.82
Ares and Survey No.97/3 admeasuring 10.12 Ares, Village-Ghodbunder,
Tal & Dist-Thane was owned by Smt. Dayabai Gajanan Patil, who sold
the same vide sale-deed dated 21 October 1975 to Shri. Rasiklal Trikam
Lal Shah. By further sale-deed dated 19 July 1980, Shri. Rasiklal Trikam
Lal Shah sold the land to M/s. Hatkesh Builders. Similarly, another parcel
of land bearing Survey No.95 admeasuring 5 Acres, 4 1/2 Gunthas and
Survey No.96 admeasuring 2 Acres and 4 1/2 Gunthas, Vil lage-
Ghodbunder, Tal & Dist-Thane was sold by Smt. Dayabai Gajanan Patil to
Shri. Chandrakant Babulal Shah on 29 October 1978. By further
agreement dated 1 November 1978, Shri. Chandrakant Babulal Shah sold
the said land to M/s. Hatkesh Builders. The third parcel of land bearing
Survey No.95 admeasuring 5059 sq.mts at Village-Ghodbunder was sold
PAGE NO. 2 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
by one Mr. Babubai Patil on 29 October 1978 to Shri. Govind Moreswar
Patil. By further agreement dated 18 July 1979, Shri. Govind Moreswar
Patil sold the third parcel of land to M/s. Hatkesh Builders. This is how
the entire land admeasuring about 50,900 sq.mts is claimed to be in the
ownership of M/s. Hatkesh Builders.
3) In the land so owned by M/s Hatkesh Builders, about 72
industrial galas/units have been constructed since the year 1979-80. The
units were apparently sold by M/s. Hatkesh Builders to various
purchasers. The purchasers of the units applied for registration of a co-
operative industrial premise society and by Certi�cate of registration
dated 11 November 2008, Respondent No. 6-Society was registered.
4) Respondent No.1 is the proprietor of M/s. Hatkesh Builders.
It is claimed that he acquired knowledge about registration of the society
after receipt of summons in R.C. Suit No. 582 of 2013. Respondent No.1
claims that registration of the society was made behind his back and by
submitting forged and fabricated documents. The well-wisher of
Respondent No.1 applied for certi�ed copies of the documents �led at
the time of registration of the society. After securing copies of the
documents, Respondent No. 1 �led Misc. Application No. 5 of 2015
before the Divisional Joint Registrar seeking de-registration of
Respondent No.6-Society under the provisions of Section 21A of the
MCS Act. The Society opposed the application by �ling reply dated 27
October 2015. The de-registration application was initially rejected on
26 December 2016 on the ground of delay, but the Hon'ble Minister set
aside that order on 27 November 2020 and remanded the matter for fresh
PAGE NO. 3 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
adjudication. The Hon'ble Minister order dated 27 November 2020 was
challenged before this Court and this Court remanded the proceedings to
Hon'ble Minister by order dated 3 February 2021. By a fresh order passed
on 10 May 2021, the Hon'ble Minister once again remanded the
proceedings to the Divisional Joint Registrar for fresh adjudication on
merits. The remand order passed by the Hon'ble Minister was challenged
before this Court, which ultimately upheld the order dated 10 May 2021
by dismissing Writ Petition No. 2250 of 2021 on 15 March 2024.
Consequently, Misc. Application No. 5 of 2015 was renumbered as Misc.
Application No. 15 of 2020.
5) Misc. Application No.15 of 2020 preferred by Respondent
No.1 was allowed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by order dated 15 July
2024 holding that registration of the Society was based on
misrepresentation. While allowing the Application, the Divisional Joint
Registrar has directed cancellation of certi�cate of registration dated 11
November 2008 of Respondent No.6-Society and has appointed Of�cial
Assignee in respect of the Society .
6) Petitioners, who are members of the de-registered society,
preferred Appeal No. 565 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Minister (Co-
operation) challenging the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dated
15 July 2024. The Hon'ble Minister has however dismissed the Appeal of
the Petitioners by order dated 23 June 2025. Petitioners have accordingly
�led the present petition challenging the orders passed by the Hon'ble
Minister and the Divisional Joint Registrar. By order dated 4 May 2026,
PAGE NO. 4 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
this Court has granted ad-interim relief in favour of the Petitioners by
staying the orders dated 15 July 2024 and 23 June 2025.
7) The Petition is taken up for �nal disposal by grant of Rule.
Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1, who is the main contesting party, has waived the
service of the Rule.
SUBMISSIONS:
8) Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners submits that the Divisional Joint Registrar has grossly erred
in exercising power under Section 21A of the MCS Act for directing de-
registration of Respondent No.6-Society which was registered in the year
2008. That none of the grounds enumerated under Section 21A exist in
the facts and circumstances of the present case. That the Divisional Joint
Registrar has acted as an appellate authority over the order of
registration. That Respondent No.1 did not prefer Appeal against
registration of the society and that the order of registration of the
society has thus attained �nality. That power of de-registration under
Section 21A cannot be exercised in a casual manner unless one of the
enumerated grounds are made out in the facts of a case. That de-
registration of the society is ordered mainly on the ground of
construction being unauthorised. He relies on judgment of this Court in
Sukhsagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and another Versus.
State of Maharashtra and others
1
in support of his contention that mere
1 2004 (3) MH.L.J. 1010
PAGE NO. 5 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
absence of development permission cannot be a ground for refusal to
register a Co-operative Society. He also relies on judgment of this Court
in Airoli Neha Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Versus. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2
in support of his contention that
illegality or irregularity in construction of the building cannot be a
ground for de-registration of the society. He submits that submissions of
documents relating to Survey No. 365 at the time of registration of the
society was a mere genuine mistake. That Respondent No.1 himself
claims to have secured permission from Ghodbunder Gram Panchayat for
construction of the industrial units. That therefore providing of
inaccurate information at the time of registration of the society does not
make out a ground of misrepresentation under Section 21A of the MCS
Act. In support, he relies on judgment of this Court in Elite Diagnostic
Center Private Limited Versus. Krishna Kunj, Co-operative Housing
Society Limited
3
. He submits that the Society has been managing the
affairs of the industrial complex for the last 18 long years and the
members of the Society would suffer irreparable injury if the Society is
de-registered at this stage. That de-registration is sought by the
Respondent No.1 with an oblique motive to take over control of the land.
That if there is no permission, it was a mistake on the part of Respondent
No.1 and he cannot be permitted to take bene�t of his own mistake. Mr.
Dharmadhikari would pray for setting aside the orders of the Divisional
Joint Registrar and the Hon'ble Minister.
2 2023 (3) MH.L.J. 529
3WP No. 7855 of 2026 decided on 2 July 2026
PAGE NO. 6 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
9) Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1 opposes the petition. He submits that two authorities
have concurrently recorded �ndings of facts about fraud,
misrepresentation, forgery etc. That registration of the society was
obtained by misleading the Registrar. That the property mentioned in
the Application was Survey No. 365, Hissa No.1(P) 3(P) of Village-
Bhayandar and by applying whitener, the address was changed to Survey
Nos.94, 95, 96 and 97 of Village-Ghodbunder. That the letter of Registrar
for reserving the name and for opening of bank account was also in
respect of land bearing Survey No. 365 of Village- Bhayandar and that
whitener was applied even on this document. That in several other
documents in the proposal for registration, whitener was applied and the
description of the property was changed to Survey Nos.94, 95, 96 and 97
of Village-Ghodbunder. That along with the application, Building
Completion Certi�cate dated 29 October 1985 issued by Gram Panchayat,
Navghar, Bhayandar (East) pertaining to land bearing Survey Nos.94, 95,
96 and 97 was submitted. That the land is actually situated in
Ghodbunder for which Gram Panchayat, Ghodbunder had issue d
Commencement Certi�cate on 30 January 1979. Thus, a fraudulent
document issued by Navghar Gram Panchayat was relied upon for
registration of society in respect of land located at Ghodbunder. That
even the notice issued to Respondent No.1 by the Registrar, indicated
address of the Society as Survey No. 365 of Village-Bhayandar. That by
relying on documents in respect of an altogether different land at Survey
No. 365 of Village Navghar, registration was secured in respect of land
bearing Survey Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97 of Village-Ghodbunder. That thus
the registration is clearly secured by relying on fraudulent documents
PAGE NO. 7 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
and the same is correctly cancelled by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Mr.
Shah has also relied on judgment of this Court in Elite Diagnostic Center
Private Limited (supra) in support of his contention that if information
for seeking registration turns out to be forged or fabricated, power of de-
registration can be exercised. He also relies on judgment of this Court in
Waghamay Mahila Machchimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Botha
(SA) Versus. Commissioner of Fisheries Taraporevala Aquarium
Mumbai
4
in support of his contention that the term 'misrepresentation'
means and includes a positive assertion of a fact in a manner not
warranted by the information and that if the material submitted for
grant of registration is found to have been misrepresented, power of de-
registration can be exercised. That in the judgment, it is held that
misrepresentation need not be fraudulent, and it can even be an
incorrect presentation of those aspects necessary for the grant of
registration. Mr. Shah submits that on the basis of fraudulent
registration of the society, the Petitioners are preventing Respondent
No.1 from even entering into the property. He accordingly prays for
dismissal of the petition.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS, REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
10) The issue involved in the present Petition is about
correctness of exercise of power of de-registration by the Divisional Joint
Registrar under Section 21A of the MCS Act. Respondent No.6-Society
has been registered on 11 November 2008. Ordinarily, a person aggrieved
by an order of registration of the society can �le an appeal under Section
4 2020(1)MH.L.J. 864
PAGE NO. 8 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
152 of the MCS Act. In the present case, Respondent No.1 did not prefer
an appeal against the registration order dated 11 November 2008. He
raised a plea of ignorance about registration certi�cate dated 11
November 2008. Respondent No.1 claimed that he acquired knowledge
about the registration after receipt of summons in R.C. Suit No. 582 of
2013 and thereafter took out certi�ed copies of documents submitted
along-with registration proposal. Even after acquiring knowledge about
registration of the society vide certi�cate dated 11 November 2008 or
upon receipt of summons in R.C. Suit No. 582 of 2013, Respondent No.1
could have �led an Appeal under Section 152 challenging the order of
registration by seeking condonation of delay. Respondent No.1 was
however advised to apply for de-registration of the society under Section
21A of the MCS Act.
STATUTORY SCHEME OF DE-REGISTRATION:
11) Under Section 21A of the MCS Act, a Registrar is vested with
power to de-register the society in the event he is satis�ed that the
society is registered on misrepresentation made by the Applicants or
where the work of the society is complete/exhausted or the purposes for
which the society has been registered are not served. The last eventuality
for de-registration is with regard to use of the word 'bank’, ‘banking’,
‘banker' or any other derivative word of the bank in the name of
agricultural co-operative credit society. Thus, against the wider remedy
of �ling an appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act for challenging the
order of registration passed under Section 9, the power of the Registrar
under Section 21A is much narrower and can be exercised only if one out
PAGE NO. 9 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
of the four enumerated grounds is made out. While exercising appellate
powers, the Registrar can re-appreciate the material on record and arrive
at a �nding different from the one recorded by the Assistant Registrar
while exercising the power of registration. On the other hand, when de-
registration of an already registered society is sought under Section 21A,
the scope of jurisdiction narrows and the Registrar can exercise the
power only if he records a satisfaction about existence of one of the four
enumerated eventualities. For the purpose of the present case, the �rst
eventuality of 'misrepresentation' is relevant. Section 21A of the MCS Act
provides thus:
21A. De-registration of societies.—
(1) If the Registrar is satis�ed that any society is registered on mis-
representation made by applicants, or where the work of the society is
completed or exhausted or the purposes for which the society has been
registered are not served [or any primary agricultural co-operative
credit society using the word ‘Bank’, ‘Banking’, ‘Banker’ or any other
derivative of the word ‘Bank’ in its name,] he may, after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the Chief Promoter, the committee and
the members of the society, de-register the society
Provided that, where the number of members of the society is so large
and it is not possible to ascertain the correct addresses of all such
members from the records in the of�ce of the Registrar and, in the
opinion of the Registrar it is not practicable to serve a notice of hearing
on each such individual member, a public notice of the proceedings of
the de-registration shall be given in the prescribed manner and such
notice shall be deemed to be notice to all the members of the society
including the Chief Promoter and the members of the Committee of the
Society, and no proceeding in respect of the de-registration of the
society shall be called in question in any Court merely on the ground
that individual notice is not served on any such member.
(2) When a society is de-registered under the provisions of sub-section
(1), the Registrar may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
or any other law for the time being in force, make such incidental and
consequential orders including appointment of Of�cial Assignee as the
circumstances may require.
PAGE NO. 10 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
(3) Subject to the rules made under this Act, the Of�cial Assignee shall
realise the assets and liquidate the liabilities within a period of one year
from the date he takes over the charge of property, assets, books,
records and other documents, which period may, at the discretion of the
Registrar, be extended from time to time, so however, that the total
period does not exceed three years in the aggregate.
(4) The Of�cial Assignee shall be paid such remuneration and
allowances as may be prescribed; and he shall not be entitled to any
remuneration whatever beyond the prescribed remuneratio n or
allowances.
(5) The powers of the Registrar under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not
be exercised by any [of�cer below the rank of a Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies].
12) Recently in Elite Diagnostic Center Private Limited, (supra)
this Court had an occasion to deal with the broad contours of jurisdiction
to be exercised by the Registrar under Section 21A while ordering de-
registration of a society. This Court has held in paras-18 and 25 of the
judgment as under:
18) Under sub-section (1) of Section 21A, the Registrar can order de-
registration of the Society only if (i) the Society is registered on
misrepresentation made by the Applicants, (ii) where work of the
Society is complete or exhausted, (iii) the purposes for which the
society has been registered are not served and (iv) if agricultural co-
operative credit society uses the words like ‘bank’, ‘banking’, ‘banker’
etc. Except these four eventualities, the Registrar cannot exercise the
power of de-registration of the society. In the present case, admittedly
ground nos. 2 to 4 enumerated above neither exist nor were alleged by
the Petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar. This leaves only the
ground of ‘misrepresentation made by applicants’ for the purpose of
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 21A of the MCS Act in the present
case. It is this ground of misrepresentation, which was pressed into
service by the Petitioner for seeking de-registration of the society. The
Divisional Joint Registrar had recorded a �nding of misrepresentation
while ordering de-registration of the Society by order dated 3
September 2024.
PAGE NO. 11 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
25) I am in agreement with the �ndings recorded by the Hon'ble
Minister. The remit of enquiry under Section 21A of the MCS Act is in
extremely narrow compass. As observed above, there is a separate
remedy of �ling Appeal against registration of the society under Section
152 of the Act, which is a much broader remedy. The power of de-
registration is to be exercised in rare circumstances where one out of
the four enumerated circumstances under Section 21A is made out. The
�rst circumstance of ‘misrepresentation’ is not to be misunderstood as
giving wide or unbridled power on the Registrar of recalling the
decision of registration. While exercising the power under Section 21A,
the Joint Registrar cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the
Assistant Registrar. It is only in a rare case where registration of the
society is based on misrepresentation by the Applicants that the power
of de-registration can be exercised. The misrepresentation must be of
such nature and degree that if not made, the society would not have
been registered. Mere giving of inaccurate or incomplete information
cannot be a misrepresentation capable of de-registering the society.
The misrepresentation must be noticed in the information given while
seeking registration. The information on the basis of which registration
is obtained must be demonstrated as false or the documents submitted
must be demonstrated as forged or fabricated. Misrepresentation
cannot be assumed on the basis of events occurring subsequent to the
registration of the society.
13) Thus, when de-registration of a society is sought under
Section 21A of the MCS Act by invoking the ground of 'misrepresentation,'
it must be demonstrated that the information, on the basis of which
registration is obtained, was false or that the documents submitted at
the time of registration were forged or fabricated. The misrepresentation
must be of such a nature and magnitude that if the same was not made,
the Registrar would not have registered the society. Non-disclosure of
full information or giving of inaccurate or incomplete information may
not always amount to misrepresentation within the meaning of Section
21A of the MCS Act warranting de-registration of the society. The power
of de-registration under Section 21A on the ground of misrepresentation
therefore cannot be exercised in a casual manner by readily accepting the
PAGE NO. 12 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
objection of the objector about falsity in the information or forgery in
the documents. The Registrar must apply his mind to the entire material
on record and arrive at a �nding as to weather whether the society could
have been registered if the misrepresentation had not been made. The
word 'misrepresentation' appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 21A
therefore needs to be understood contextually meaning thereby that the
misrepresentation must go to the root of the matter and upon being
discovered, render the very registration ab-initio void. If the society is
otherwise not registrable, but registration is secured by giving false or
misleading information or by submitting forged or fabricated documents,
the power of de-registration under Section 21A can be exercised.
14) In the present case, Respondent No.1 is the owner and
developer of the land on which he undertook a scheme of construction of
industrial units in the late seventies. The order of the Divisional Joint
Registrar would indicate that since 1979-80, about 72 industrial units are
constructed on the concerned land bearing Survey Nos.94 to 97 of
Village-Ghodbunder. The industrial units have been sold by Respondent
No.1 to various purchasers who came together and decided to form a Co-
operative Society for the purpose of collective management of the entire
property. By the time, decision was taken for formation of the society, a
period of over 28 years had passed from construction of some of the
units. On 30 June 2008, the then Chief Promoter of the Society made an
application for reservation of name of the Society and for opening of
bank account. The Deputy Registrar issued a letter dated 30 June 2008 for
reservation of the name and for opening of a bank account. Thereafter,
application was made for registration of the Society on 1 October 2008.
PAGE NO. 13 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
The registration certi�cate has been granted on 11 November 2008. As
observed above, Respondent No.1 had available the remedy of �ling
Appeal against the registration certi�cate dated 11 November 2008
which he had failed to avail. Instead, he opted for seeking de-registration
of the society under Section 21A by �ling Misc. Application No.5 of 2015.
By order dated 26 December 2016, the Application was initially rejected
citing the reason of delay. The rejection order was challenged before the
Hon’ble Minister who passed order dated 27 November 2020 remanding
the proceedings for fresh adjudication. The order passed by the Hon'ble
Minister was challenged by the Society by �ling a petition before this
Court. This Court remanded the proceedings to Hon'ble Minister by order
dated 3 February 2021. By a fresh order passed on 10 May 2021, the
Hon'ble Minister once again remanded the proceedings to the Divisional
Joint Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits. The order passed by the
Hon'ble Minister on 10 May 2021 was once again challenged by the
Society by �ling Writ Petition No. 2250 of 2021 which was rejected by
this Court vide order dated 15 March 2024. This is how Misc. Application
No.5 of 2015 was renumbered as Misc. Application No.15 of 2020 and
was taken for decision by the Divisional Joint Registrar on merits.
FINDINGS RECORDED BY DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR:
15) After recording the submissions of both the sides, the
Divisional Joint Registrar has held that the Society is not registered
under Section 10 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963
(MOFA) on account of non-cooperation of promoter. He has observed
PAGE NO. 14 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
that in the proposal for registration, misleading information was
provided to the Deputy Registrar. In the proposal, letter dated 29 October
1985 issued by Sarpanch-Gram Panchayat, Navghar was produced as the
development permission. However, as per the Gazette dated 12 June
1985, Navghar Gram Panchayat was already merged into Mira Bhayandar
Municipal Corporation. The Divisional Joint Registrar has relied on
information provided by Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation to Smt.
Sujata Ravikant Shinde and to the police about non-issuance of
development permission in respect of the land in question. The
Divisional Joint Registrar has therefore concluded that what was
produced was not a valid development permission. The Divisional Joint
Registrar thereafter went into the issue of grant of permission for use of
land for non-agricultural purposes (NA permission) and has held that in
the proposal, it was indicated that the land was 'NA' but the NA
permission was not available. The Divisional Joint Registrar has taken
into consideration the fact that the NA order of Tahsildar dated 21
January 1981 was produced alongwith the proposal. However, mere
payment of tax would not convert unauthorised NA use into authorized
one.
16) The Divisional Joint Registrar thereafter went into the issue
of number of units stating that only 26 units were indicated in the
proposal when in fact in the Suit, number of units were indicated as 72.
In Writ Petition No. 1951 of 1983, the number of units were indicated as
41. He therefore concluded that misleading information was provided
about the total number of units. The Divisional Joint Registrar also went
into the aspect of overwriting/corrections in the documents. He has
PAGE NO. 15 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
observed that in several documents, the name of the village, as well as
survey numbers were corrected by putting whitener. He has taken note of
registration of Regular Criminal Case No. 440 of 2016 in which
chargesheet has been �led against some of the Petitioners. The
Divisional Joint Registrar thereafter took into consideration the
contention of Respondent No.1 that he had executed only 48 agreements
for sale of only the plinths. He has further held that Petitioners
thereafter carried out unauthorised construction on those plinths,
against which action is taken by the Municipal Corporation which was
suppressed at the time of registration. It is further held that
misrepresentation about units being authorized was made to the
Registrar. He has further held that while submitting the proposal for
sanctioning the layout plan, certi�cate of architect, permission for use,
Z-form, 7/12 extract, ULC order, NA order, development agreement and
list of witnesses were not appended to the proposal and that therefore,
there was no compliance with the requirements for registration. The
Divisional Joint Registrar thereafter took into consideration the factum
of rejection of application for deemed conveyance by the Competent
Authority by order dated 4 February 2021. He has also gone into the
reasons for rejection of application for deemed conveyance.
17) This is how the Divisional Joint Registrar has arrived at a
conclusion that registration of the Society is made on the basis of
misrepresentation. He has further held that as per the letters of Mira-
Bhayandar Municipal Corporation dated 21 August 2014 and 31 August
2015, the development permission was not granted in respect of the land
and that Navghar Gram Panchayat did not have the authority to issue the
PAGE NO. 16 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
development permission. That Petitioners suppressed the information
about action being taken against unauthorised construction. He has
concluded that providing incomplete information, submission of
forged/false/incomplete documents and suppression of vital information
is included within the ambit of the term 'misrepresentation'. This is how
the Divisional Joint Registrar has concluded that registration of the
Society is based on misrepresentation. On these broad reasons, the
Divisional Joint Registrar ordered de-registration of the Society.
ALLEGATION OF SUBMISSION OF FORGED DOCUMENTS FOR SEEKING
REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY:
18) In the present case, the allegation of misrepresentation
within the meaning of Section 21A of the MCS Act was raised essentially
by contending that documents relating to some other property were
submitted with the proposal to demonstrate construction permission.
Mr. Shah has mainly laid stress on the fact that the promoters of the
Society had submitted documents pertaining to land bearing Survey No.
365 of Village-Navghar for securing registration of society in respect of
plot situated at Village-Ghodbunder . Mr. Shah has invited my attention
to a document being the certi�cate issued by Gram Panchayat-Navghar
about completion of construction by M/s. Hatkesh Construction
Company at Survey Nos. 94,95 and 96. He has contended that said Survey
Nos. 94,95 and 96 are inserted by putting white ink when in fact the said
document pertains to land at Survey No. 365 of Village-Navghar. The
allegation against the Petitioner is that the documents issued by
Navghar Gram Panchayat are sought to be relied upon to justify legality
PAGE NO. 17 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
of construction of the land situated within the limits of Ghodbunder
Gram Panchayat. It appears that the date on which the said certi�cates
were issued (29 October 1985), Navghar Gram Panchayat was not in
existence as the area was already brought under the jurisdiction of Mira
Bhayandar Municipal Corporation.
19) It is dif�cult to comprehend the exact objective behind
submitting documents of Navghar Gram Panchayat with the registration
proposal. There is another document on record in the form of certi�cate
issued by Ghodbunder Gram Panchayat to suggest grant of NOC for some
construction on the concerned land. The said document is dated 30 May
1975 and the same is in respect of a construction to be carried out at
Survey Nos. 95 and 96 at Village Ghodbunder. It is dif�cult to record a
de�nitive conclusion as to whether the said NOC issued by Ghodbunder
Grampanchayat is in respect of the construction of all industrial units or
not. Be that as it may. I proceed on an assumption that there is no valid
permission granted by any planning authority for carrying out
construction at the site. However, in the present case if there is absence
of construction permission, the same is clearly attributable to
Respondent No.1. Why Respondent No.1 proceeded to sell the units for
which there was no construction permission is for Respondent No.1 to
explain. It is sought to be contended on behalf of Respondent No.1 that
he did not construct the units and that he had constructed only plinths
in respect of the said units. However, even for construction of the plinths,
some permission of planning authority was necessary, which he himself
admits was not obtained. Thus, the case involves a situation where
PAGE NO. 18 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
Respondent No.1 is attempting to take bene�t of his own wrong. This is
dealt with in greater details in the latter part of the judgment.
20) Petitioners have sought to distance themselves from the
documents relating to construction permission. They actually question
appearance of those documents on record of the Registrar by contending
that the Society had never produced the same. My attention is invited to
the reply �led by the Society before the Divisional Joint Registrar in
which it is stated as under:
With regard to the Applicant's contention in relation to the purported
fraudulent document i.e. completion certi�cate dated 29th October,
1985 (produced at page 94 of the Compilation of documents) allegedly
issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bhayander in favour of Hatkesh
Construction being submitted to the Respondent No.24 is concerned,
the Respondents submit that to the best of their knowledge the
Respondent No.1 Society did not submit the said document to the
Respondent No.24 for seeking registration of Respondent No.1
Society and Respondents fails to understand as to how and why
the said document is being produced by the Applicant to allegedly
raise baseless allegation against the Respondents of allegedly
committing fraud whilst obtaining registration. Respondents most
humbly submit that said document has no nexus whatsoever with the
land on which galas of Respondent No.1 Society. is being constructed
and the Respondents have every reason to believe that with mala�de
and ulterior motives the Applicant is resting his case on said document
which is baseless. In any event, Respondents humbly submits that
said document is not the key document based on which the
registration is being granted in favour of Respondent No.1 Society
and the same is not a requirement for submission of a proposal for
registration of a Cooperative Society. Hence by no stretch of
imagination the said document cannot be regarded as the basis to
consider cancellation of registration of Respondent No.1 Society and
there is no question of playing any fraud or misrepresentation whilst
obtaining registration.
(emphasis added)
PAGE NO. 19 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
21) Petitioners thus took a stand before the Divisional Joint
Registrar about non-submission of concerned documents relating to land
bearing Survey No. 365 of Village-Bhayandar. On the other hand, Mr.
Shah has submitted that the concerned documents are procured through
certi�ed copies of the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. It is not
necessary to delve deeper into this controversy. Suf�ce it to note that the
defence was also raised by the Petitioners is that the said documents
were not the key documents needed for registration of the society.
BACKGROUND OF SUBMISSION OF REGISTRATION PROPOSAL:
22) No doubt, there appears to be some discrepancy in some of
the documents which appear on record of the Deputy Registrar along
with the registration proposal. However, the background in which the
registration proposal was submitted also needs to be appreciated. In the
present case, Respondent No.1 has constructed either partly or fully
many of the industrial units and he has sold the same to the purchasers
by executing registered Agreements. One such Agreement is placed on
record (which was also on record before the lower authorities). By the
registered Agreement executed on 4 July 1981, M/s. Hatkesh Builders
(proprietary concern of Respondent No.1) sold industrial Unit E5 to M/s.
Universal Packaging. Copy of the Agreement placed on record is slightly
illegible, but Recital No.3 of the said agreement is copied below:
3. The Builders have formulated a scheme for erecting structures
consisting of several Units on the said land, in accordance with
approved and sanctioned plans, to be used for Industrial purposes
and the Builders have decided to sell the several units consisting of
several Buildings and/or the Gala or Galas in such Unit or Units, in such
PAGE NO. 20 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
structures, on what is known as "OWNERSHIP BASIS" with a view that
ultimately the Purchasers of the Building or Unit's in such Unit or
Units in structures in Co-operation with one another. Co-operative
Society with such rules any bye-laws as are usually adopted or
incorporate a Private Limited Company, with usual memorandum
sad articles of Association.
(emphasis added)
23) Further, Clause 23 of the Agreement again provided for
formation of a co-operative society and the same is as under :
On the Private Limited Company or Co-operative Society as the case
may be being incorporated or formed the rights of the Purchaser as the
Purchaser of the said Building No.-- Unit No. E/5 and/or Gala/s No ___
will be recognised and regulated by the provisions of the said Private
Limited Company of the Co-operative Society and the Rules and
Regulations framed by them as the case may be.
24) Thus, while selling the units, Respondent No.1 had not only
made representation that the construction was being put up as per
sanctioned plans but had also expressly promised formation of co-
operative society/company in respect of units sold by him.
25) Respondent No.1 represented to the unit purchasers as
under :
(i ) That he is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.94 to 97
of Village-Ghodbunder, Taluka-District-Thane.
(ii) That he had formulated a scheme for erecting structures
consisting of several industrial units.
(iii) That plans for construction of units were sanctioned by the
Planning Authority (he possibly relied on NOC issued by
Ghodbunder Gram Panchayat on 30 May 1975).
PAGE NO. 21 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
(iv) That though proper NA permission was not secured, NA
assessment was paid from time to time in pursuance of orders
dated 12 February 1979 and 21 January 1981.
(v) That purchasers can form a co-operative society in respect of
the industrial units.
26) With above representations, Respondent No.1 went on
constructing and selling the industrial units. He possibly did not obtain
proper development permission from the Planning Authority and relied
upon mere NOC granted by Gram Panchayat- Ghodbunder. He did not
bother to get the land converted to non-agricultural use by following
prescribed procedure. Respondent No.1 had no objection for formation
of society by unit purchasers.
27) Moreover Respondent No.1, did not ful�ll the promised
obligation of formation of co-operative society for 20 long years. The
unit purchasers therefore decided to come together for formation of the
society.
PLEADINGS IN DE-REGISTRATION APPLICATION:
28) Respondent No. 1, who now claims that the industrial units
are unauthorisedly constructed, conveniently avoided to make any
disclosure about construction of those units in his de-registration
application. The application for de-registration was cleverly drafted
without disclosing the manner in which the industrial units were
PAGE NO. 22 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
constructed. It would be apposite to reproduce paras-2.2 to 2.7 of the de-
registration application which reads thus:
२.२A GE NO.O 1oGfE G40 5ugE ugst2637o 18SVydAvySUtkyo/&yDS uy,fw&yl8t6
pjpkUjjyGRUyeVNsy,fw&G&y1-BMmSyg&/B.a&SsVn&yCaMcS,nlufyCS,�-क ��र कर���
�f� आ�f. सन १९७९ ��1nydrsyMehnVnyDS ण ७ (ळfy'(cJ/&ny0)fy5Bnf.
२.३U e&yC4lsyn5Md)r&s y�M'aKfnVI yL&ufy/(GfyMra(SyP Uj UPtit �� आदf� क;
NAA/Village Ghodbunder/SR/405A अ���fyM'aKfnVylsA&amVyaySf� अन�+क,�
KfTGfy'(cS&eySUaydrsyMehSnVG&yCS,�-क ��र कfV/&S&sufyCS,M3Sy0S&suVyAyrWड
0S&sJ/&ny0)fy05fU yndfGydrsy5 आदf�� �fyaeXrySsJ/&ny0)f)fy05f t6Y *t,�-क
0S&suVyAyrWT&o/&ysZefG&y[su&ySf)fyCdn&y\/&G&yC]^yCaMcS,nyKfTGfy'(cS&eyCMcS,�
5Bu&sya&5VU
२.४.GE NO.O_`! 1oGfE G40 5ugE ugst2637o 18SVydAvySUtpYytkYytayAytiyM5bd&
३ �� एक uy,fw&yl8SVypaYtp6UjjyGRUyeVNsy,fw&G&y1-BMmSyg&/.a&SsVn&yCaMcS,nluf
अक,�-क ��र कर��� �f� आ�f. सन १९८१ ��1nydrsyMehnVnyDS uypPylw&KfTGfym&hf
'(cJ/&ny0)fy5Bnf.
२.५.y e&U yC4lsyn5Md)r&s y�M'aKfnVI yL&ufy/(GfyMra(Sy PUjPUPt`P �� आदf� क.
NAA/Village Ghodbunder/SR/7 अ���fy M'aKfnVy lsA&amVyay Sf� अन�+क,nluf
KfTGfy'(cS&eySUaydrsyMehSnVG&yCS,�-क ��र कfV/&S&sufyCS,M3Sy0S&suVyAyrWड
e5&s&dey.Meaye5dO)yCMcMa/eyGfyS)eypkyCRA/fy0S&sJ/&ny0)fy05fUndfGydrsy5
आदf�� �fyaeXrySsJ/&ny0)f)fy05f t6Y *t,M3Sy0S&suVyAyrWT&o/&ysZefG&y[su&ySf)f
अस� ��� अ�^ अन�+क,nyKfTGfy'(cS&eyCMcS,ny5Bu&sya&5VU
२.६A GE NO.O_`! 1oGfE G40 5ugE ugst2637o 18SVydAvySUtpYytkYytaylytiyM5bd&
३ �� एक uykjYttjUjjyGRUyeVNsy,fw&G&U1-BMmSyg&/.a&SsVn&yCaMcS,nlufyCS,�-क
��र कर��� �f� आ�f. सन १९८१ ��1nydrsyMehnVnyDS uyp`ylw&KffGfym&hfy'(cJ/&ny0)f
�'�fUydrsy.MeaVAsy'(cJ/&ny0)fV/&ygR-BMmSym&h/(o/&ydeX5&d "�टकf� उ�'( न(र"
Cdfya&eSsuySsJ/&ny0)f)fy05f.
�dB'nye&U yC4lsyn5Md)r&s y�M'aKfnVI yL&ufy/(GfyMra(Sy PUjP.१९८१ �� आदf� क.
<==>?@AABCD EFGHIJKHDL>MN>c "6 gou02637o *u+to0o*R97 f �दन3क
PAGE NO. 23 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
rGNr_NIrE1HJdDLHkU5VHkVHDdTVHoc/NH\SU HAT)U2LHhuhHF/��� �/� आ�/.) �न �. ३६
�/ ३७.
२.७. सन १९७९-८० �/ अ����1VH FJHDABTHABMYVL.JHkc2D/� �टक/� उ�'( न(र
gl7/ ७२ �/0UHuAeYHiUMS:a/HuTAeY,VO2/Hp:eYUBHYJnSUVHo9/9/Hoc/.
29) Thus, though, Respondent No.1 himself �oated the scheme
of construction of industrial units and sold them to various purchasers,
he made vague statements in the de-registration application that land
admeasuring 4045.00 square meters was being illegally used for
industrial purposes. While making this statement, Respondent No.1 did
not disclose that such unauthorised industrial use was attributable solely
to him. He has put the land to industrial use by construction of industrial
galas/units. The averments in the de-registration application thus paint
a picture as if someone else started making unauthorised industrial use
of the land. In para 2.5 of de-registration application, Respondent No.1
pleaded that �ne was levied for construction of sheds and for
unauthorised non-agricultural use under Section 45 of Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966. He further averred that such levy was paid.
Respondent No.1 must have paid such levy. However with a view to
escape the consequences of payment of such levy, he further averred that
payment of levy did not convert unauthorized into authorized one. If the
construction and NA permission were invalid, it was Respondent No.1
who was solely responsible for such acts.
30) Respondent No. 1 also cleverly avoided to plead details of
construction of number of Units. In para-2.6 of de-registration
application, Respondent No.1 admitted that by 1981, 48 units/tin sheds
PAGE NO. 24 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
were constructed on the concerned land and the complex of those
industrial units was named as Hatkesh Udyog Nagar. All these acts are
done by Respondent No.1 himself. Finally, he admitted in para 2.7 of his
application that, by the time of �ling of de-registration application, more
than 72 unauthorised industrial units had been constructed. However,
Respondent No.1 was careful in not admitting in his application that he
himself has constructed most of those units. There is no positive
statement in the application that either all or any of the units were
constructed either by the Petitioners or by any person other than
Respondent No.1. Since there is Agreement for Sale on record containing
clear covenants for setting up industrial complex on the concerned land
by construction of various units, it will have to be necessarily presumed
that the units are constructed by the Respondent No.1 himself.
31) Though it is not pleaded in the Application, the Divisional
Joint Registrar has noted the contention of Respondent No. 1 that he had
executed only 48 agreements for sale of only the plinths. However, there
is no averment to that effect in the application for de-registration. On
the contrary the application suffered from gross suppression about
Respondent No.1 constructing the units. In any case there is admission
on the part of the Respondent No. 1 that he himself put up part
construction of 48 units.
32) While Respondent No.1 repeatedly brands the units as
unauthorised construction (ignoring that he himself has constructed them),
he placed on record before the Divisional Joint Registrar a No Objection
Certi�cate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Ghodbunder for carrying out
PAGE NO. 25 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
construction on land bearing Survey Nos. 95 and 96 admeasuring 29263
sq.mts. Respondent No. 1 also placed on record order dated 21 January
1981 passed by the Additional Tahsildar-Thane by which occupiers and
holders were directed to pay non-agricultural assessment in respect of
use of land bearing Survey Nos.94 to 97 of Village-Ghodbunder, Taluka
and District-Thane. Respondent No.1, who failed to secure proper NA
permission and constructed industrial units and sold them for pro�ts,
now conveniently raises a plea that mere payment of NA assessment
does not mean that unauthorised construction got converted into a
lawful construction. This Court deprecates this act on the part of
Respondent No.1.
EVENTS LEADING TO FILING OF DE-REGISTRATION APPLICATION:
33) There is total silence in the de-registration application �led
by Respondent No.1 in respect of events which occurred between 1983 to
2013. This means that the relationship between the unit purchasers and
Respondent No.1 were cordial upto the year 2013. Something happened
in the year 2013 which disturbed these cordial relations. It appears that
�ling of Suit by the Society against Respondent No.1 in the year 2013
gave rise to discord in the relationship between the parties. Perusal of
R.C. Suit No. 582 of 2013 �led by Respondent No.1-Society would
indicate that one Mr. Sachin Velji Shah, claiming to be running leather
goods industry, was claiming certain rights in respect of the road which
was to be used by all the 72 gala owners of the Society. The Society had
installed 2 gates for their safety purpose and the gates were in existence
for 20 years. Adjacent to the Society land, there is a land known as
PAGE NO. 26 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
Garden View land. There were disputes between Sachin Velji Shah
(Defendant No.1) and one Juber Patel relating to the said garden view
land. It was Plaintiff’s case that Defendants in the suit had started
obstructing its members to enter from gate no.1 and that they had closed
society’s private internal road by fencing with iron sheets. Respondent
No.1 was Defendant No.3 in the said suit. Accordingly, injunction was
sought against the Defendants from restraining Plaintiffs’ right of way to
pass through main gate no.1.
KNOWLEDGE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 ABOUT REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY:
34) Respondent No.1 claimed before the Registrar that he
acquired knowledge about registration of the Society after receipt of
summons in Regular Civil Suit No. 582 of 2013 sometime in the year
December 2013/January 2014. This claim however appears to be
fallacious in view of the fact that the Society had written to Respondent
No.1 on 12 March 2010 about formation of the Society. The letter was
apparently issued in pursuance of meeting held between the members of
the Society and Respondent No.1, in which Respondent No.1 had
requested for list of members of the society. Accordingly, by letter dated
12 March 2010, Society had handed over list of members and copy of
registration certi�cate to Respondent No.1. The letter dated 12 March
2010 reads thus:
To,
M/s. Hatkesh Builders
Mr. Paresh S. Vohra
Hatkesh Industries
Mira Road (E)
PAGE NO. 27 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
Thane 401104
Dear Sir,
With reference of the meeting held at F/2 Hatkesh between members
and Mr. Paresh S. Vohra. As requested by you we are enclosing the list of
members of the Hatkesh Udyog Nagar Industrial Premises Co-op HSL,
and also a Xerox copy of Registration Certi�cate of above Society.
Please acknowledge and oblige
Enc: 1)Xerox copy of present members.
2) Members List ( Present)
Hatkesh Udyog Nagar
35) There appears to be acknowledgment by Respondent No.1
on the said letter dated 12 March 2010. In none of the pleadings
Respondent No. 1 denied receipt of letter dated 12 March 2010. Thus, it
appears that Respondent No.1 was well aware about formation and
registration of the Society on 12 March 2010 and had no grouse about
the same. It is only after receipt of suit summons that Respondent No.1
started making inquiries into registration of the Society. Respondent
No.1 himself did not make any inquiries. The pleadings in the de-
registration application would indicate that Application for information
was preferred by Mr. Tufel Rahi, who appears to be the constituted
attorney of Respondent No.1. After seeking information under the Right
to Information Act, 2005, Respondent No.1 chanced upon som e
discrepancies in the documents �led at the time of registration of the
society. Respondent No.1 decided to take disadvantage of those
discrepancies and submitted application dated 18 May 2015 to Lokayukta
for cancellation of registration of the Society. Copy of letter was also
addressed to the Divisional Joint Registrar, who advised Respondent
PAGE NO. 28 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
No.1 to �le proceedings under Section 21A of the MCS Act. This is how
Respondent No.1 �led application seeking de-registration of the Society
under Section 21A of the MCS Act.
36) From the above discussion, it is clear that Respondent No.1
is responsible for illegalities/irregularities, if any, in construction of the
units. He has misrepresented to the purchasers that units have been
constructed after securing permission from the Planning Authority. He
has acted in breach of his promise regarding the formation of society by
unit purchasers. There is contractual breach as well as statutory breach
on the part of Respondent No.1. Despite acquisition of knowledge about
registration of the Society in the year 2010, he did not take any steps for
�ling appeal against registration. It is only after the Society �led a suit in
the year 2013 that Respondent No.1 started making inquiries about the
manner of registration of the Society and �led proceedings for its de-
registration.
OBJECTIVE BEHIND SEEKING DE-REGISTRATION:
37) It appears that Respondent No.1 owns large tract of land
and only part of the same is being used for construction of industrial
units. In reply �le before the Divisional Joint Register, speci�c
allegations were raised against Respondent No.1 about variou s
unauthorised constructions put up by him. The Society speci�cally raised
the contention that �ling of de-registration application was a
counterblast to Society's action of �ling the suit. In this regard, pleadings
PAGE NO. 29 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
in para 4J of the reply �led before the Divisional Joint Registrar are
relevant, which read as under:
j. The Respondents further submit that the present Application is
nothing but an counterblast proceedings mala�de �led by the
Applicantas an arm twisting method to harass and cause mental
stress/strain to the members of Respondent No.1 Society, inter-alia,
since the Applicant has illegally constructed certain structures and
created encroachment affecting the premises of the Respondent No.1
Society and thereby blocking the right of way of the members of the
Respondent No.1 Society passing from Society's main Iron gate No.1,
and in view thereof inter-alia to restrain Applicant from carrying such
illegal activities Respondent No.1 Society has �led a suit for permanent
injunction before the Civil Judge, Thane and also �led criminal
proceedings with local police station, which are pending adjudication.
Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure A are the photos depicting
such encroachment by the Applicant.
38) Considering the above position, the question that falls for
consideration is whether this Court would come to the aid of Respondent
No.1 who himself has committed illegalities and wants to take
disadvantage of his own illegalities. Having indulged in massive
unauthorised construction, he now seeks to have the registration of the
society cancelled by citing his own illegalities. The units are sold by
Respondent No.1 from 1979 onwards and despite passage of 28 long
years, he has done precious little for formation of society. Far from
forming a co-operative society, Respondent No.1 was indulging in
activities of restraining the society’s members from entering into the
premises and there are allegations of him indulging in further
unauthorised constructions. All this position is not appreciated by the
Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister has mechanically
decided the proceedings by repeatedly holding that construction of
industrial units is unauthorised conveniently ignoring the position that
PAGE NO. 30 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
the objector himself is responsible for such unauthorised construction.
The Divisional Joint Registrar ought to have rejected the application of
Respondent No.1 at the threshold by appreciating the position that he
was attempting to take bene�t of his own wrong. Instead of doing so, the
Divisional Joint Registrar has concentrated only on discrepancies in the
documents submitted at the time of registration of the society.
Undoubtedly, there are discrepancies in the documents so submitted at
the time of registration of the society. However, considering the conduct
of Respondent No.1, he was not the person at whose instance inquiry
could have been initiated into those discrepancies. In any case,
extraordinary power of de-registration of already formed society ought
not to have been resorted to for aiding the devious plans of Respondent
No.1. In my view, therefore the Divisional Joint Registrar has exercised
the jurisdiction vested under Section 21A of the MCS Act with material
irregularity. His order ought to have been set aside by the Hon’ble
Minister.
ILLEGALITY IN CONSTRUCTION WHETHER A G ROUND FOR DE-
REGISTRATION :
39) The Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister are
mainly swayed by the fact that the construction of the Units is not
authorized and that action is taken against unauthorised construction by
Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation from time to time. The issue for
consideration is whether mere illegality in construction can be a reason
for non-registration of the Society. The issue is no more res-integra and
is covered by judgment of this Court in Sukhsagar Co-operative Housing
PAGE NO. 31 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
Society Limited (supra). The issue before this Court was whether the
Registrar can go into the issue of legality of construction while deciding
the application for registration of the society under Section 9 of the MCS
Act. It appears that in the case before this Court, the Municipal
Corporation had refused to grant Occupancy Certi�cate on account of
failure of the developer to complete the statutory obligations. The
registration of the society was refused on that count. This Court held in
para-15 of the judgment as under:
15. On behalf of the fourth respondent, it was sought to be urged that
the Municipal Corporation has not issued an occupation certi�cate in
respect of Wing 'B-1' and Wing 'B-2' because the tenements which have
been provided by the fourth respondent to re house the existing
occupiers do not admeasure 225 sq.ft. Hence, it was sought to be urged
that unless an occupation certi�cate is received, it is not lawfully open
to the members of the petitioner-Society to occupy their �ats in
violation of the provisions of Section 353-A of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888. It was sought to be urged that under Section 9 of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Registrar is
entitled to satisfy himself that a proposed Society has complied with
any other law for the time being in force. Moreover, it was sought to be
urged that the expression, "who reside in the area of operation of the
society" in Section 6 must necessarily mean the requirement of lawful
residence and since the members of the society are not entitled to
lawfully reside in the �ats in dispute, registration could not have been
granted. The submission has to be only stated to be rejected. The
expression "who reside in the area of operation of the society" indicates
that the persons who join in the formation of the Society must reside in
that local area wherein the society will operate. The residence which
has been adverted to therein does not refer to the proposed residence,
in the case of a Co-operative Housing Society, in the �ats which would
be allotted to the members of the society upon its formation. Similarly,
the satisfaction of the Registrar in Section 9 of the Act that a proposed
society has complied with the provisions of any other law far the time
being in force, obviously refers to a law for the time being in force in
relation to the registration of the Society. It is, in my view, no part of
the Registrar's function to decide upon whether in respect of the
construction carried out by the builder or developer the members of the
Society are entitled to an occupation certi�cate under Municipal Law.
The question as to whether the construction is in accordance with
PAGE NO. 32 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
building regulations and if so, whether an occupation or completion
certi�cate should be granted, does not lie within the province of the
Registrar. These are matters which are to be considered by the Planning
Authority, in the present case, by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
The registration of a Society does not carry with it, a recognition as
regards the lawfulness of the construction in which members of the
Society claim an entitlement to occupy residential premises. The
registration of the society does not impinge upon the statutory powers
of the Municipal Corporation, to determine whether an occupation
certi�cate should be granted. The Municipal Corporation will decide
that issue in accordance with the Building Regulations and Bye-laws.
Insofar as the question of registration is concerned, the revisional
authority was in error in setting aside the certi�cate of registration on
the ground that the Municipal Corporation has not granted an
occupation certi�cate. Undoubtedly, if any person has occupied a
residential �at in violation of the provisions of Section 353-A of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, it would be open to the
Competent Authority to take such steps as are necessary in accordance
with law to deal with such an infraction. The formation of the society,
however, cannot be thwarted on that ground. Indeed, the formation and
registration of a Co-operative Society of �at purchasers is essential, for,
it is the �at purchasers who are truly interested in ensuring due
compliance by the builder of his obligations under the scheme
sanctioned under Regulation 33(7). The Municipal Corporation as in the
present case, may decline to grant an occupation certi�cate if the
developer has not complied with his obligations under the scheme.
However, the formation of a Co-operative Society will in fact, enure to
the bene�t of those bene�cially entitled to rights under the scheme
because it would enable the �at purchasers to take recourse to the
remedies open in law to ensure due compliance by the developer of his
obligations under the scheme. Therefore, as a matter of principle, it is
impossible to accept the correctness of the submission that has been
urged on behalf of the fourth respondent.
40) Thus, mere irregularity in construction of the building is not
a factor relevant for not granting registration certi�cate to a society.
Thus, it was not really necessary for the promoters of the society to
prove before the Deputy Registrar that construction of the units was in
accordance with the development permission. The objective behind
forming a co-operative society is to merely ensure collective
management of the property. Since individual unit owners �nd it dif�cult
PAGE NO. 33 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
to collectively manage common facilities, as well as to look after safety
and security of the property, an organization of such unit purchasers in
the form of a cooperative society, company or organization is formed.
Therefore, merely because a society is registered, the same does not give
a �avour of legality to the construction which is otherwise illegal. The
Planning Authority is not precluded from taking action against such
illegal construction merely on account of formation of society. If the
entire construction is demolished by the Planning Authority, the society
can still reconstruct the structure by applying for permission from the
Planning Authority. In that sense, formation and registration of
collective body like a society comes to the rescue of unit owners in the
event the entire structure is required to be demolished by the Planning
Authority. In my view therefore mere failure on the part of the promoters
of the Society to convince the Registrar about legality of construction
cannot be a ground for non-registration of a co-operative society.
41) In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the
information for justifying legality of construction was not even necessary
for registration of the society. It therefore cannot be contended that any
mis-statement made by the Petitioners at the time of registration in this
regard goes to the root of the matter and that if the statements and
documents relating to legality of construction were not submitted, the
Registrar would never have registered the society. In my view, therefore
any shortcoming in proving legality of construction subsequently
discovered cannot be a ground for de-registration of society under
Section 21A of the MCS Act.
PAGE NO. 34 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
42) The issue with regard to de-registration of a society under
Section 21A on account of illegality or irregularity of construction is
again no more res-integra and is covered by the judgment of this Court in
Airoli Neha Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra)
in which this Court has held in para-10 and 11 as under:
10. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to point
out any provision under the MCS Act which would confer jurisdiction
on the Registrar, who would be authorized to register or de-registrar co-
operative Society or the higher authorities exercising the appellate and
revisionary powers, that merely because there is some illegality or any
irregularity in the construction of the building of the Society, the
Society could be de-registered. If the reasons as set out in the
impugned order are accepted to be the correct position in law it would
not only run contrary to the provisions of Section 8 to 10 providing for
registration of the co-operative Society but also create a chaotic
situation. Such position also becomes clear from the provisions of
Section 21A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which
provides for de-registration of Society. It would be appropriate to note
the said provisions, which reads thus:
21A. De-registration of societies
XXX
11. Thus, it is clear that an issue and/or a subject matter which is
completely alien to the MCS Act and not relevant to the registration
and de-registration of a Society cannot be a subject matter of
consideration to de-register the petitioner Society. This is exactly what
Section 21A would also depict. There is no manner of doubt that the
impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is based on reasons
which are extraneous to the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act as discussed above.
43) Thus, as held in Airoli Neha Apartments Co-operative
Housing Society Limited, illegality or irregularity in construction of
building of the society is not relevant for the registration and therefore,
the same can also not be relevant for de-registration of the society. In my
PAGE NO. 35 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
view, therefore, the Divisional Joint Registrar has taken into
consideration extraneous factor of legality of construction while
exercising the power under Section 21A of the MCS Act.
44) The ground of rejection of application for deemed
conveyance cited by the Divisional Joint Registrar, is totally irrelevant for
exercising jurisdiction under Section 21A of the MCS Act. The
misrepresentation referred to in Section 21A must be in the information
given to the Registrar at the time of making an application for
registration of the society. Therefore, subsequent rejection of application
for deemed conveyance on 4 February 2021 by the Competent Authority
is an irrelevant factor for deciding the Application for de-registration.
INCORRECT EXERCISE OF APPELLATE POWERS:
45) The Hon’ble Minister has not correctly exercised the
appellate powers. Perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister
would again indicate that he has mainly taken into consideration the
ground of absence of development permission for carrying out
construction for upholding the order of de-registration. He has also
taken into consideration the factor of mismatch in the number of units
and the one indicated at the time of registration of the society. He has
also taken into consideration the factor of absence of NA permission. He
has recorded the �nding that Respondent No.1 did not receive notice of
registration of the society and that registration was in violation of
provisions of Section 10 of MOFA. He has also taken into consideration
the factum of application of whitener on some of the documents
PAGE NO. 36 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
submitted at the time of seeking registration of the society. Lastly, the
Hon'ble Minister has considered rejection of application for deemed
conveyance for upholding the order passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar.
46) Thus, the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister does not
really conduct an inquiry into the allegation of misrepresentation by the
Applicants at the time of registration of the society. Violation of
provisions of Section 10 of MOFA, non-receipt of notice by Respondent
No.1 in proceedings for registration, rejection of application for deemed
conveyance, etc. cannot be reasons for recording �ndings of
misrepresentation within the meaning of Section 21A of the MCS Act.
The reasons of absence of development permission, absence of any
permission, mismatch in number of units and application of whitener on
some of the documents, may be relevant for setting aside of registration
order by exercise of appellate powers under Section 152 of the MCS Act.
The same, however, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion of
misrepresentation within the meaning of Section 21A of the MCS Act.
CONSEQUENCE OF DE-REGISTRATION:
47) It must also be appreciated that de-registering the society at
this stage would throw the premises into a total chaos. A cooperative
society is formed by the unit purchasers ultimately for collective
management of the premises. The Society has been registered in the year
2008 and by now period of 18 long years has elapsed. If at this stage, the
Society is de-registered, collective management of the entire premises
PAGE NO. 37 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
would be adversely affected. On the other hand, mere registration of the
society does not ipso-facto affect any of the rights of Respondent No.1.
Having sold the units to the purchasers, it is incomprehensible as to why
the promoter/Respondent No.1 is opposing the collective management
of those units by the owners. Respondent No.1 is attempting to take
bene�t of his own wrong in not securing necessary permissions for
construction of the units and wants to have the collective body formed
by unit purchasers disbanded for achieving the obvious oblique motive of
claiming rights in the land from which he has already pro�teered. If he
believes that any unit holder has unauthorizedly encroached upon the
land, he can always �le a suit for eviction against such unit holder. Mere
formation of the society does not affect his right to seek declaration of
title in his name. Thus, if balance of convenience is appreciated, the unit
owners would be adversely affected in the matter of collective
management of premises upon de-registration of the society as
compared to virtually no loss being suffered by Respondent No.1 by mere
formation of the Society. He is opposing formation of the society
possibly on account of an apprehension that the society would
ultimately secure conveyance in respect of the land. At this juncture this
Court is not concerned with the issue of deemed conveyance and the
same can be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. Suf�ce it to observe
that there is no warrant for ordering de-registration of society formed 18
years ago. In my view, therefore it would be appropriate to set aside the
order of de-registration passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar which is
con�rmed by the Hon’ble Minister.
PAGE NO. 38 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
CONCLUSIONS:
48) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where
Respondent No.1 is seeking bene�t of his own wrong, de-registration of
already formed society ought not to have been ordered. In ordinary
circumstances, upon noticing the discrepancies in the documents
submitted at the time of registration of the society, this Court would
have been loath in interfering in the order of de-registration. However,
once this Court is convinced that de-registration of the society would
enure to the bene�t of Respondent No.1, who himself is responsible for
not securing necessary permissions, it would not be appropriate to
uphold the order of de-registration. This is not to suggest that societies
and their promoters can get away with the consequences of submitting
documents with discrepancies. However, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the discrepancies in the documents can be
ignored only to ensure that Respondent No.1 is not permitted to take
bene�t of his own wrong. If a developer constructs a building without
securing permissions, sell units therein and after a society is formed by
the unit purchasers, he applies for de-registration on the ground that the
building constructed by him is illegal. Can de-registration of a society
can be undertaken in such case at the instance of errant developer?
Answer to my mind, appears to be in the negative. This exactly has
happened in the present case. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the order of de-registration of the society
deserves to be set aside.
PAGE NO. 39 of 40
5 August 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6144 OF 2026
ORDER:
49) The conspectus of the above discussion is that the impugned
orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister
are indefensible and liable to be set aside. The petition accordingly
succeeds and I proceed to pass the following order:
(i) The order dated 15 July 2024 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar, as well as order dated 23 June 2025
passed by the Hon’ble Minister are set aside.
(ii) De-registration Application �led by Respondent No. 1
is dismissed.
50) The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]
PAGE NO. 40 of 40
5 August 2026
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Date:
2026.08.05
19:47:47
+0530
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....