Bombay High Court quashes registrar orders and directs fresh inquiry into competing society registration

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar heard petitions challenging a sequence of administrative orders under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) that led to registration of a cooperative housing society. The petitions arose from rival proposals filed by flat purchasers and the developer for formation and registration of a society, and raised the question whether quasi‑judicial authorities could permit consequential steps in favour of a later applicant while an earlier statutory application remained pending.

The High Court quashed the Assistant Registrar’s orders dated 9 June 2025 and 18 June 2025, the District Deputy Registrar’s order dated 17 June 2025, and the Divisional Joint Registrar’s common order dated 21 August 2025 insofar as they rested on the procedural sequence that precluded decision of Application No.36 of 2025. The Court directed restoration of Application No.36 and ordered the District Deputy Registrar to decide it afresh within eight weeks, with detailed directions for a focused inquiry into authenticity of signatures, status of deponents, and the correct area to be included in the society. The Court also directed that “transactions ... in the bank account opened on 9 June 2025 … shall be frozen to the extent necessary to preserve the rights of parties pending final adjudication” and directed the State to place the record before the competent disciplinary authority to consider a departmental enquiry against the Assistant Registrar, Mr. Pramod Durgude, under the standards in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “If, instead, the authority permits the later applicant to undertake consequential steps such as opening a bank account, completing formalities, or securing registration, and thereafter uses those very steps as a ground to reject the earlier application, the process becomes self defeating. The earlier claimant is effectively denied a real opportunity of consideration.” The judgment also stated that “A quasi judicial authority ... was required to act in a manner that was fair, transparent and consistent with the basic principles of natural justice.”

Background: The dispute concerned land in Village Jalochi (Gat Nos.134/1 and 134/2) and multiple agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA. The promoter obtained construction permission in 2015 and executed sale agreements between 2015–2021. When the promoter did not take steps to form a cooperative society within the statutory period, a meeting of flat purchasers on 26 February 2025 appointed the petitioner, Sandeep Shelar, as Chief Promoter. The petitioner filed Application No.36 on 12 March 2025 under the first proviso to Section 10(1) MOFA seeking registration; notice was issued and a hearing fixed.

On 13 May 2025 the developer (through Rohit Jadhav) submitted a competing proposal and, after preliminary exchanges, the Assistant Registrar on 9 June 2025 permitted the developer to open a bank account in the proposed society’s name. On 17–18 June 2025 the District Deputy Registrar rejected the petitioner’s application and the Assistant Registrar granted registration to the society on the developer’s proposal. The Divisional Joint Registrar later dismissed the petitioner’s revision and appeals by order dated 21 August 2025.

The High Court found that the chronology of filings was material and that the authority should have first adjudicated the petitioner’s earlier statutory application or otherwise coordinated consideration of competing proposals. The Court held that permitting the later applicant to take consequential steps and then relying upon those steps to reject an earlier pending application created a fait accompli and violated principles of fair adjudication. The Court directed a limited but thorough inquiry into disputed facts, including verification of signatures, inspection of original documents and sanctioned plans, and determination of the correct area to vest in the society (the petitioner contended the society area was reduced from 26,000 sq. m to 7,903.86 sq. m). The petitions were disposed of with the stated interim safeguards and a direction to the disciplinary authority to consider whether a prima facie case existed for departmental proceedings against the Assistant Registrar.

Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.11982 OF 2025 & connected matters (WP No.11988/2025 & WP(ST) No.29872/2025) Case Title: Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shrivallabh S. Panchpor with Mr. Nilesh Angad Chaudhari For the Respondent(s): Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP (for State in WP/11982/2025); Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP (for State in WP/11988/2025); Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP (for State in WPST/29872/2025); Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar with Mr. Shubham Suryawanshi (for respondents Nos.5,7,13–23 & 25); Mr. Mahesh Shirke (for respondent No.11); Ms. Laurdu Agnes Merlin (for respondent No.24).