Bombay HC Rules Society Members Cannot Split Redevelopment Challenges Across Courts
The Bombay High Court has ruled that housing society members opposing redevelopment cannot divide their legal battles across multiple courts, dismissing a petition filed by 41 residents of Saujanya Cooperative Housing Society in Navi Mumbai.
Justice Sandeep Marne held that members aggrieved by both a housing society’s redevelopment resolutions and the subsequent development agreement must bring a single, combined challenge before a civil court, rather than splitting the dispute between the Cooperative Court and Civil Court.
The petitioners had opposed the redevelopment of their society, which comprises 69 ground-floor structures, contending that the buildings were not even 30 years old and did not require reconstruction. The society had initiated its redevelopment process in 2016. It appointed a project management consultant in May 2021, authorised a redevelopment committee to select a developer in August 2021, and appointed Omkar Planet Buildcon as the developer in March 2022.
Following these steps, the members challenged several society resolutions before the Cooperative Court while separately filing a civil suit to dispute the development agreement and power of attorney. The Cooperative Court rejected their challenge in March 2025, and the Cooperative Appellate Court upheld that decision in September 2025, prompting the members to move the High Court.
Justice Marne observed that once a development agreement is executed and a developer acquires an interest in the property, the developer cannot be impleaded in certain Cooperative Court proceedings. Consequently, a challenge to the development agreement cannot proceed effectively in that forum.
The High Court noted that the developer had acquired an interest in the society’s property in October 2023, while the Cooperative Court dispute was filed later, in June 2024. Under these circumstances, challenging only the general body resolutions before the Cooperative Court was meaningless without challenging the development agreement itself.
Emphasising that members cannot segregate their legal challenges, the court stated that the correct remedy is to file a comprehensive civil suit covering both the society resolutions and the development agreement. Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court upheld the previous rulings of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court and dismissed the plea.
