Registrar Cannot Decide Title Disputes Using Supervisory Powers Under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act: High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the powers conferred upon the Registrar under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are supervisory in nature and cannot be exercised to adjudicate disputes relating to title or ownership of property. The Court observed that where performance of an act requires an adjudicatory order by the competent authority, the Deputy Registrar cannot bypass that process by issuing directives to a society under Section 79(2) of the Act.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a writ petition challenging an order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, issued under Section 79(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. By the impugned order, the Deputy Registrar directed the housing society to cancel the petitioner's membership and share certificate, restore water supply to the disputed flat and return the parking space to the contesting respondent. The dispute arose out of competing claims over a flat in a co-operative housing society, with both parties asserting rights based on the society's membership and share certificate. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Registrar had exceeded his jurisdiction by effectively deciding a title dispute under the guise of issuing directions under Section 79(2), whereas the respondents defended the order as a legitimate exercise of statutory powers.
The Court examined the scope of Section 79 and held that the provision empowers the Registrar only to ensure that a society performs duties imposed upon it by the Act, the Rules, the Bye-laws or an earlier order of the Registrar. It observed that cancellation of a member's name from the membership register or share certificate is not an act which a society is statutorily obliged to perform on its own, nor was there any prior order of the Registrar directing such cancellation.
The Court held that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not contemplate the society or the Registrar resolving title disputes through proceedings under Section 79, and that the existence of serious rival claims over ownership itself demonstrated that the matter required adjudication by a competent forum. It noted that the Registrar's powers under Section 79 are confined to supervision and enforcement of statutory obligations and do not extend to determining substantive civil rights relating to immovable property.
“Power conferred under Section 79(2) of the MCS Act merely supervisory in nature where the Registrar can ensure that the society acts in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and the Byelaws. It cannot be confused with the adjudicatory power under which the Registrar can decide the disputes relating to the title or possession of a flat/unit in society's building,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the Deputy Registrar had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing cancellation of the petitioner's membership and share certificate while acknowledging the existence of a title dispute.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the Deputy Registrar's direction requiring cancellation of the petitioner's membership and share certificate, while maintaining the directions relating to restoration of water supply and return of the parking space.
Case Title: Saili Durgadas Acharya v. Nandan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 890 of 2018]