Bombay HC: Registrar Cannot Decide Flat Ownership in Title Disputes

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court has held that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction under Section 79(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to cancel a member's share certificate or decide questions of flat ownership when a serious title dispute is pending between parties. The judgment, delivered on 17 July 2026 in Saili Durgadas Acharya v. Nandan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., arose from a decades-long family dispute over a flat at Shivaji Park, Mumbai.

What Section 79(2) actually allows

Section 79(2) lets the Registrar direct a society to comply with its duties under the Act, Rules, or Bye-laws — for instance, restoring a utility connection the society wrongly cut off. The Court clarified that this power is purely supervisory and enforcement-oriented. It does not let the Registrar adjudicate who actually owns a flat or cancel someone's membership when there is a genuine, unresolved title dispute. That is a job for a Civil Court or the Co-operative Court, not an administrative order.

In this case, a Deputy Registrar had ordered a society to cancel one family member's share certificate and hand her parking space to another relative, despite acknowledging that ownership of the flat was itself disputed. The High Court set aside the cancellation direction, calling it beyond the Registrar's jurisdiction, while allowing the parts of the order restoring water supply and parking — matters within the Registrar's legitimate supervisory role — to stand.

What this means for housing societies

• Do not treat a Registrar's directive as the final word on who is entitled to be a member if a title or inheritance dispute is genuinely contested — get legal advice before acting on it.
• Managing committees should keep membership transfers and share certificate changes strictly within the process set out in the MCS Act and the society's Bye-laws, especially after a member's death.
• When family members dispute ownership of a flat, the society should direct them to the Civil Court or Co-operative Court rather than trying to resolve the claim internally.
• Societies can still be directed by the Registrar to restore services like water or parking — that supervisory power is unaffected by this ruling.

The Court noted it was following its own recent decision in Sadashiv Nagappa Kadam v. State of Maharashtra (decided 4 May 2026), reinforcing a consistent line that ownership and title questions in CHS buildings must go through proper courts, not Registrar-level directives. Committees currently facing similar Registrar orders in ongoing family or succession disputes should consult their society's legal advisor promptly, as this ruling can be cited to challenge orders that overreach into title adjudication.