Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10003 OF 2023
Namdeo Suratsingh Chaudhary
Age 55 Years, Adult, Occupation: Retired Residing at 204, Sudhirkunj, CHS Ltd., Near Mali Samaj
Mandir, Ramdaswadi Syndicate, Kalyan, District Thane. … Petitioner
Narahaysingh Natu Patil (Deceased)
Through Legal Heirs
(i) Subhash Narayansingh Jadhav
(deceased through Legal Heirs)
(i)a. Ashabai Subhash Jadhav
Age: 55 years
R/at Savalde, Taluka Shirpur District Dhule
(i)b. Amol Subhash Jadhav
Age: 35 years
(i)c. Prithviraj Subhash Jadhav
Age: 30 years
(i)d. Sou. Chaitali Ratnakar Jadhav
Age: 32 years
R/at Savalde, Taluka Shirpur District Dhule
(ii) Prakash Narayansingh Jadhav
Age : 62 years
R/at Savalde, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule
Age : 58 years
(iv) Sou. Babanbai Sumershingh Patil
Age : 45 years
R/at Savalde, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule
(v) Latabai Navnathsingh Patil (deceased)
(through Legal Heirs)
(v)a. Navnathsingh Zendu Patil
Age : 55 years
R/at Flat No.20, Pramod Nagar, Sector 2, Devpur, Dhule
(v)b. Mahesh Navnathsingh Patil
Age : 35 years
(v)c. Sou. Dimpala Yashpal Patil
Age : 32 years
2. The Chairman/Secretary
Bijlee Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
36/142, Sundar Nagar, Kalina
Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 029.
3. Shri Ramshingh Shankarsingh Patil
Age: 82 years, Occ: Retired
R. S. Patil, A/2014, Silver Star Coop
Housing Society Ltd., Kalina
Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 098
4. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, H (East) Ward, Mumbai
Division, Mumbai … Respondents
Mr. Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate, a/w Ms. Tanaya
Goswami, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Sr. Advocate, i/b Mr. Rohan Mirpury, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajesh Parab, for Respondent No.2.
Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP
, for the State – Respondent
Nos.4 & 5.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution. He challenges the order of Respondent No.5. By that order, Revision Application No.458 of 2018 confirmed order dated 15 September 2018 passed by Respondent No.4 directing the name of Respondent No.1 be entered as a member of Respondent No.2 Society in place of the petitioner.
2. The facts are these. Respondent No.1 filed an application on 20 January 2018 before the Assistant Registrar. He sought deletion of the petitioner’s name and substitution of his own name in the membership records of Respondent No.2 Society. He stated that his predecessor in title, late Natu Ambarsingh Patil, was a founder member of the Society. He had been allotted Share Certificate Nos.146 to 150. Natu Patil died on 16 August 1981. Respondent No.1 claimed that the names of Natu Patil’s legal heirs were never entered in the society records. He asserted that Natu Patil had never surrendered his membership. He further stated that the original share certificates were never supplied to Natu Patil. The name of Natu Patil nevertheless appeared in the preliminary voters list during the 2017 elections of the Society.
3. Respondent No.1 asserted that the petitioner knew that Respondent No.1 was the legal representative of late Natu Patil. Despite this, the petitioner got his own name entered in the records by deleting the name of the deceased member. Respondent No.1 submitted that, being the legal heir of late Natu Patil, his name must be entered in the records as member. He alleged that the Chairman of Respondent No.2 Society was a close relative of the petitioner. According to him, the Chairman and the petitioner acted in collusion to transfer the share certificates illegally in favour of the petitioner. He claimed that the transfer was without legal basis and therefore void.
4. The petitioner opposed the application. He contended that Respondent No.1 never obtained a legal heirship certificate. He submitted that the entry of the name of deceased Natu Patil continued in the records due to incorrect information. He denied the allegation that Respondent No.1 was not residing in Mumbai. He submitted that the original member, Natu Patil, had transferred his membership to the petitioner on 12 December 1976. He stated that Natu Patil never disputed this transfer during his lifetime. He pointed out that Respondent No.1 approached the authority after an unexplained delay of 42 years. He stated that the incorrect entry in the provisional voters list of 2017 had already been corrected on 12 December 2017. The petitioner’s name thereafter appeared in the final voters list.
5. The petitioner further submitted that the original member had sold his membership rights to him on 12 December 1976. He had signed the membership application forms. After the submission of these forms, Share Certificate Nos.146 to 150 were transferred to the petitioner. The Managing Committee resolved on 19 December 1976 to confer membership on the petitioner. He stated that after membership was conferred, he paid Rs.6,600 for construction to the Society during 1976 to 1978, and the Society issued receipts to him. He stated that he served as a Managing Committee Member between 1989 and 1993. In an election dispute before the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court, he was recognised as such. He therefore sought dismissal of Respondent No.1’s application.
6. The Registrar heard both sides. The Assistant Registrar directed that the name of Respondent No.1 be entered in the Society records. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision. The Revisional Authority upheld the order of the Assistant Respondent No.1. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court by way of the present petition.
7. Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that Respondent No.1 has not produced any evidence to establish that he is a legal heir of the deceased Natu Patil. He pointed out that Respondent No.1 has not explained why he approached the authority after a lapse of 42 years from the alleged transfer of membership. He submitted that late Natu Patil never objected to the petitioner’s membership during his lifetime. He referred to Bye-law No.6 of the Society, which states that only persons permanently residing in Mumbai or the suburban areas and who have signed the application are eligible to be members. Respondent No.1 himself stated in his application that he is not an ordinary resident of Mumbai. He therefore contended that the No.1.
8. He further submitted that Section 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 empowers the Registrar to decide whether a person is an agriculturist or resides within the area of operation of the society or otherwise meets the parameters of Section 11. If Respondent No.1 intended to raise a dispute regarding membership, he was required to show the statutory source of power enabling the Registrar to adjudicate such a grievance. He submitted that there is no provision under the Act that empowers the Registrar to decide the grievance raised by Respondent No.1. He therefore contended that the orders passed by the authorities are without jurisdiction.
9. In reply, Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1, submitted that the powers to decide the grievance of Respondent No.1 arise under Sections 11, 22(1)(a), 25A, 30 and 35 of the Act. He submitted that by the amendment which came into force on 9 March 2019, a specific power has been conferred on the Registrar under Section 154B(9) to deal with such issues.
10. He relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Karbhari Maruti Agawan v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Mh.L.J. 1527, to contend that Section 11 empowers the Registrar to enquire into the qualifications and disqualifications of members whenever such a dispute arises. He further relied on the judgment of this Court in Udhav Laxman Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.7435 of 2025, decided on 14 October 2025), where it was held that the Registrar has jurisdiction under Section 11 to decide such issues. He then relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P., (2007) 10 SCC 635, to submit that writ courts will not exercise discretion if doing so results in restoring an illegality. He submitted that the deletion of the name of Respondent No.1 from the provisional voters list was in breach of natural justice. He pointed out that the Assistant material showing any valid transfer from the deceased member to the petitioner. He submitted that no relevant documents were available with the Society and that the petitioner relied on forged and fabricated documents to secure membership. He therefore urged that the orders of the authorities deserve to be upheld and the writ petition dismissed.
11. I have heard counsel for the parties. I have read the record carefully. I will state the facts. I will analyse the rival contentions. I will give a reasoned conclusion.
12. The short question is this. Can the Registrar, under Sections 11, 22 and 25A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, remove the petitioner’s name and enter the name of Respondent No.1 on the basis of the material placed before him. The question has two limbs. First, whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by Respondent No.1. Second, if he had jurisdiction, whether the record supports his conclusion.
13. For deciding the issues involved, it is necessary to refer to the statutory scheme that governs membership under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The provisions directly relied upon by both sides are Sections 11, 22(1)(a) and 25A. They read as follows. Section 11. Power of Registrar to decide certain questions.— When, [* * *] any question arises whether a person is an agriculturist or not, or whether any person resides in the area of operation of the society or not, [or whether a person is or is not engaged in or carrying on any profession, business or employment, or whether a person belongs or does not belong to such class of persons as declared under sub-section (1-A) of Section 22 and has or has not incurred a disqualification under that sub-section,] such question shall be decided by the Registrar [and his decision shall be final, but no decision adverse to any such person shall be given without giving him an opportunity of being heard.] Section 22. Person who may become member.—(1) ………… [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the State Government may, having regard to the fact that the interest of any person or class of persons conflicts or is likely to conflict with the objects of any society or class of societies, by general or special order, published in the Official Gazette, declare that any person or class of persons engaged in or carrying on any profession, business or employment shall be disqualified from being admitted, or for continuing, as members or shall be eligible for membership only to a limited extent of any specified society or class of societies, so long as such person or persons are engaged in or carry on that profession, business or employment, [as the case may be; and the question whether a person, is or is not so engaged in or carrying on any profession, business or employment or whether a person belongs or does not belong to such class of persons as declared under this sub-section and has or has not incurred a disqualification under this sub-section shall be decided by the Registrar under Section 11].] [(1-B) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where the Registrar has decided under Section 11 that a person has incurred a disqualification under subsection (1-A), the Registrar or the person not below the rank of District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, authorised by him in this behalf, may, by order, remove such person from the membership of the society; and such person shall cease to be a member of the society on expiration of a period of one month from the date of receipt of such order by him.] Section 25-A. Removal of names of members from membership register.—The committee of a society shall remove from the register of its members the name of a person who has ceased to be a member or who stands disqualified by or under the provisions of this Act [or the rules made thereunder] for being the member or continuing to be the member of a society: Provided that, if the society does not comply with the requirement of this Section, the Registrar shall direct such society to remove the name of such person, and the society shall be bound to comply with such direction.]
14. Section 11 confers a narrow and specific jurisdiction. It authorises the Registrar to decide certain preliminary questions. These questions relate to the basic qualifications of a person seeking membership. These include whether a person is an agriculturist. Whether he resides within the area of operation of the society. Whether he is or is not engaged in a profession or class of employment which may attract a statutory disqualification under Section 22(1A). The explanation in Section 22(1A) further confirms that the Registrar’s powers under Section 11 are confined to determination of whether a person belongs to a class declared disqualified or has incurred a disqualification.
15. The scheme of the Act makes one point clear. Section 11 is meant for deciding only a narrow set of questions. It allows the person lives within the society’s area, whether he is an agriculturist, or whether he belongs to a class that the Government has declared as disqualified. These are straightforward matters that do not require detailed evidence or long inquiry. Section 11 is not designed to handle complicated disputes. It is not meant for deciding whether a membership was legally transferred many years ago. It is not meant for deciding who inherited rights after a member’s death. It is not meant for deciding whether documents are forged or who holds the better title to the share certificates. Questions of transfer, succession, and title require deeper examination. They may need witnesses, original documents, cross examination and detailed findings. Such matters cannot be handled in the limited and summary powers given under Section
11. Therefore, when a party raises a claim that involves old transactions, alleged collusion, rights of heirs or validity of a transfer, those issues fall outside Section 11. The Act provides other forums and procedures for deciding such complex disputes. Section 11 cannot be used to bypass those processes. This is the legal limit placed by the legislature, and it must be respected while resolving membership disputes of this nature.
16. Section 22 lays down the substantive qualifications for admission to membership. Subsection (1) identifies categories of persons who may become members. These include competent individuals, firms, companies, local authorities and others. This provision deals with eligibility criteria. It does not deal with adjudication of disputes regarding illegal entries. It does not authorise the Registrar to create membership or substitute one member for another. Admission to membership is essentially a matter for the society, subject to statutory limitations.
17. Subsection (1A), inserted later, enables the State to declare certain professions or classes ineligible for membership. It further links the disqualification question to Section 11. This reinforces the position that the Registrar’s adjudicatory role is limited to verifying objective disqualifications notified by the Government. The provision does not suggest any power in the Registrar to enquire into long-past transactions or alleged forgery of documents relating to transfer of membership.
18. Subsection (1B) empowers the Registrar or an authorised officer to remove a person from membership if he has incurred a disqualification under subsection (1A). This removal power operates only when disqualification is already decided under Section 11. The provision again shows that the Registrar’s role is confined to the narrow grounds of notified disqualification and not to generic membership disputes.
19. Applied to the present case, Respondent No.1’s grievance does not relate to any disqualification declared by the State. It does not allege that the petitioner falls within a prohibited class. The objection raised pertains to succession and alleged misuse of authority in 1976. These do not fall within Section 22(1A) or (1B). Therefore, Section 22 does not confer jurisdiction on the Registrar to decide Respondent No.1’s grievance.
20. Section 25A authorises the committee of the society to remove names of persons who have ceased to be members or who stand disqualified under the Act or the Rules. It further empowers the Registrar to direct the society to remove such names if the society fails to act.
21. This provision deals with administrative correction of membership registers. It applies to situations where a member stands disqualified under the Act. It does not extend jurisdiction to decide whether a transfer existing for forty years is valid. It does not deal with situations involving disputed inheritance. It presupposes that cessation or disqualification is already established under law. It does not authorise the Registrar to adjudicate title or to declare a past transfer invalid.
22. Applying this to the present case, Respondent No.1 asked for deletion of the petitioner’s name and substitution of his own. Section 25A cannot be invoked for such substitution because it only contemplates removal where disqualification exists. Respondent No.1 does not allege any statutory disqualification under Section 22(1A). Section 25A does not confer power on the whether the transfer of 1976 was genuine.
23. When these provisions are read harmoniously, the following position becomes clear. (a) The Registrar’s adjudicatory power is narrow. It is confined to objective jurisdictional facts such as residence, occupation, or disqualification under Section 22(1A). (b) The Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complex disputes involving succession, challenge to transactions of transfer, validity of documents or allegations of forgery.
(c) The Act provides other forums and procedures for such disputes. The Registrar cannot assume jurisdiction on grounds that fall outside the statutory scheme.
(d) Respondent No.1’s grievance falls squarely within the category of disputes that cannot be adjudicated under Sections 11, 22 or 25A. (e) Therefore, unless Respondent No.1 establishes that the petitioner stands disqualified under Section 22(1A), the removal of the petitioner’s name or confer membership on
24. Applying these legal principles to the present facts, it becomes clear that Respondent No.1 has not raised any ground that fits within the narrow scope of Section 22(1A). He does not say that the petitioner belongs to any class of persons that the Government has declared ineligible for membership. He does not allege that the petitioner suffers from any statutory disqualification. His entire case is that he is the heir of Natu Patil and that after Natu Patil’s death the membership should have come to him. He further claims that the transfer shown in favour of the petitioner in 1976 was illegal and done in collusion. These issues concern inheritance, title, and validity of a private transaction said to have taken place almost fifty years ago. Matters of this nature require detailed examination of documents, proof of signatures, and testing of rival claims. Section 11 does not allow the Registrar to enter into such complicated disputes. That provision only allows him to decide simple, objective questions of eligibility.
25. The Assistant Registrar examined the documents produced before him. He found that the petitioner had not placed reliable proof of a lawful transfer. He noted that several documents did not bear the society’s seal or any form of authentication. He also stated that the signature on a 1976 letter could not be examined in the limited jurisdiction available to him. He further recorded that no registered document of transfer was produced and that the photocopies of minutes and resolutions did not have necessary signs of authenticity. In these circumstances, he held that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was not proved on the record placed before him.
26. On the question of proof, the Assistant Registrar’s caution is understandable. The petitioner relied on minutes, resolutions, and receipts. The minutes and resolutions were mere photocopies without any seal, signature or notarisation. The original share certificates were not shown. In such a situation, the Assistant treated as conclusive evidence of transfer.
27. However, this finding on the quality of documents does not resolve the more important question, which is whether the Even if the petitioner’s documents are weak or incomplete, that does not give the Registrar jurisdiction to substitute the name of one member with another on the basis of an inheritance claim or an allegation of collusion. Section 25A allows removal of a member’s name only if he has ceased to be a member or if he is disqualified under the Act. That provision does not authorise the year-old transfer invalid.
28. If the petitioner’s membership is truly disputed on the ground that the transfer was illegal, or if Respondent No.1 claims that he is the rightful successor, such questions must be decided in a proper forum that can record oral and documentary evidence, permit cross examination, and render findings after full trial. The intended only for simple eligibility questions. They are not suited to resolve old, complex and contested questions of ownership and succession. For these reasons, the jurisdictional defect remains, regardless of the weaknesses found in the petitioner’s documents.
29. The argument based on Bye law No.6 must be considered. Bye laws generally set out who can be a member of the society. Many societies require that a member must reside within Mumbai or the suburban area. If there is a dispute about residence, the person satisfies that requirement. That is a simple factual enquiry. It fits within the limited scope of Section 11.
30. In the present case, however, the heart of the dispute is not residence. Respondent No.1 himself has stated that he is not an ordinary resident of Mumbai. His case does not rest on eligibility based on residence. His main grievance is that he is the heir of Natu Patil and that the membership should have passed to him after Natu Patil’s death. He says the petitioner wrongfully got his own name recorded in the society’s register in 1976. These allegations relate to succession and to rectification of old entries in the society’s records. Residence plays no decisive role in determining those issues. At best, the question of residence appears as a side point and not as the foundation of Respondent No.1’s claim. Even if the Registrar were to hold that Respondent No.1 satisfies or does not satisfy the residence requirement, that would still not help in deciding the real dispute. The real dispute is whether the petitioner validly acquired membership from Natu Patil in 1976 or whether, after Natu Patil’s death, Respondent No.1 has a better right as heir.
31. Those questions cannot be answered by looking at residence under Bye law No.6. They require examination of documents, proof of transfer and proof of heirship. These matters fall outside the jurisdiction given to the Registrar under Section 11. Therefore, the reliance on Bye law No.6 does not help in determining the issue raised in this petition.
32. For these reasons I allow the petition in part. I set aside the order of Respondent No.5 insofar as it affirms the substitution of Respondent No.1 in the membership register. I quash the Assistant petitioner. The society shall restore the membership register to the position that obtained before the Assistant Registrar’s order dated 15 September 2018.
33. It is clarified I have not decided on the merits of title or succession. I leave that issue to be determined by the competent forum in accordance with law. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)