1 of 5 907-wp-29396-22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 29396 OF 2022 A.L.J. Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Mr. Zubir Ahmed Tanwar & Ors. ..Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3272 OF 2023 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 29396 OF 2022 Zubair Ahmed Tanwar & Ors. ..Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN A.L.J. Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Mr. Zubir Ahmed Tanwar & Ors. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Omkar Nagwekar i/b. Pradeep D. Dalvi for Petitioner. Mr. Chirag Mody a/w. Ronish Mehta i/b. Vinod Mistry & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in writ petition and for Applicants in I.A. Dr. Dhruti M. Kapadia, AGP for State/ Respondent Nos.4 to 6. __________ CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2025 PC : 1. The petitioner housing society has filed this petition to challenge the order dated 20 July 2022 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Application No. 371 of 2018. By that Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.17 10:49:02 +0530 2 of 5 907-wp-29396-22 order, the Revisional Authority confirmed the order dated 08 February 2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar while exercising power under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 2. The facts which have led to this petition are stated below. The petitioner is a co-operative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted an application to the petitioner society for admission as members. They claimed that they had purchased shop No. 5 from the Developer on 12 February 2016. According to them, the society did not take any decision on their application. They therefore filed an appeal under Section 22(2) of the Act before Respondent No. 4. The Appeal was rejected. While rejecting the Appeal, Respondent No. 4 observed that the sanctioned plan dated 16 October 1988 showed only four shops. The plan did not show shop No. 5. Respondent No. 4 also recorded that the society stated its readiness to admit Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as members if they produced a revised sanctioned plan showing existence of shop No. 5 purchased by them. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 then filed a revision application. In that revision, the Revisional Authority recorded an incorrect finding that the City Civil Court, by order dated 08 January 2016 in Notice of Motion No. 418 of 2007 in S.C. Suit No. 443 of 2007, had held that the number of shops in the new building had 3 of 5 907-wp-29396-22 increased from four to five and consequently shop No. 3 had become shop No. 4. The Revisional Authority also relied on electricity bills issued in the name of shop No. 5 and the fact that the registered agreement had not been challenged. On these grounds, the Revisional Authority allowed the Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 relied on the decision of this Court in Videocon Appliances Ltd. versus Maker Chambers V. Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. reported in (2006) 2 Mh.L.J. 388. It was argued that in proceedings under Section 22(2) or Section 23(2) of the Act, a housing society cannot refuse membership on the ground that the construction carried out by the builder is unauthorized or in breach of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. Such issues must be decided by a Civil Court in an appropriate suit. 6. After examining the material placed on record, I find that the core issue in this case was not examined in its proper perspective. Before relying upon the observations of this Court in paragraph 12 of the decision in Videocon Appliances, it was necessary for the Registrar to first determine a basic and foundational fact. The Registrar was required to inquire whether shop No. 5, in respect of which Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sought membership, formed part of the sanctioned plan of the building. The society stands registered for a building constructed as per the plan sanctioned by the planning authority. 4 of 5 907-wp-29396-22 7. When registration is granted under Section 10 of the Act on the strength of the sanctioned plan, the scope and identity of the society building stand fixed by that plan. A structure that does not appear in the sanctioned plan does not get absorbed into the society building by implication. The law does not permit such expansion by inference. The society is therefore entitled to decline recognition of any construction that was never part of the building for which it obtained registration. This right flows from the statutory scheme. The present case does not call for an inquiry into whether the construction is unauthorized or whether it violates any municipal law. The narrow and decisive question is whether the structure in dispute formed part of the society building at the time of registration. This fact determines the very foundation of the claim for membership. If the structure never formed part of the registered building, the claim cannot advance on the basis of mere possession or a private conveyance. The issue goes to the root of the matter because the society exists as a legal entity only in respect of the building reflected in the sanctioned plan. Any structure outside that plan stands outside the society. The authorities deciding membership disputes must therefore address this jurisdictional fact at the outset. Only after settling this essential point can any further consideration arise. 8. The Deputy Registrar had already recorded that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could produce a revised sanctioned plan showing shop No. 5. That would have enabled a clear finding on 5 of 5 907-wp-29396-22 whether shop No. 5 existed as part of the building when the society was registered. The Revisional Authority ought to have adjudicated upon this central issue. In my view, the Revisional Authority failed to apply its mind to this fact. 9. For these reasons, the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 371 of 2018 cannot stand. 10. The impugned order dated 20 July 2022 in Revision Application No. 371 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. 11. The matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for fresh adjudication of the revision in accordance with law. 12. The Revisional Authority shall ensure that the revision is decided within four months from today. 13. The petition is disposed of. The interim application does not survive and it is disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)