HC Rejects Plea to De-register Santacruz Housing Society After 45 Years
On July 2, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition seeking to cancel the 45-year-old registration of the Krishna Kunj Cooperative Housing Society in Santacruz, Mumbai. Justice Sandeep Marne ruled that de-registration proceedings cannot be used to resolve land ownership disputes or challenge historical registration events long after they occurred.
The petitioner, Elite Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., had challenged a Maharashtra government decision that restored the registration of the Santacruz-based housing society. The company, represented by its director Dr. Satish Sharma, alleged that the society obtained its registration in 1981 through misrepresentation.
According to the petitioner, the building had only six flats at the time of registration. The company claimed that four open parking spaces were wrongly represented as garages to meet the minimum requirement of 10 members necessary to register a cooperative housing society.
However, the court highlighted an unusual circumstance in the case. Dr. Satish Sharma, the director of the petitioner-company, is himself a member of the Krishna Kunj Cooperative Housing Society and has previously served as one of its office-bearers.
Justice Marne observed that the director was essentially suing himself. He noted that Dr. Sharma wears two hats: in his individual capacity, he is a member of the society, but as the director of the company, he sought its de-registration.
The court held that powers under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act are limited and can only be exercised if a society was registered through deliberate misrepresentation. Justice Marne clarified that subsequent developments, such as title disputes, allegations of illegal construction, or the rejection of deemed conveyance, cannot be used as evidence of misrepresentation at the time of registration.
Regarding the members, the court found that the original 1981 registration proposal had clearly disclosed the existence of six flats and four garages. Justice Marne stated that if the Registrar had made an error in judgment by accepting garage occupants as members, it could not be treated as a misrepresentation by the applicants.
The court further noted that de-registering the housing society after 45 years would cause unnecessary complications in managing the building. Justice Marne stated that the petitioner's real motive was securing the title to the land, a dispute that cannot be adjudicated in de-registration proceedings.
Advocates Kishor Patil, Pratik Rahade, and Vinod Singh represented the petitioner. The housing society and its members were represented by Advocates Shriram Kulkarni and Minal Chavan.
