Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 .
S. 23(2) : Open membership-Nominee-Succession dispute-Scope of revisional jurisdiction-Nomination does not confer ownership- Majority legal heirs supporting claim-Tenant has no locus to challenge internal arrangement among heirs-Revisional authority exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with grant of membership. [Art. 226]
The petitioner, son of a deceased member of a co-operative housing society, challenged the revisional orders passed under S. 23(2) of the MCS Act whereby the revisional authority set aside the appellate authority’s order granting him membership in respect of the flat and garage. The deceased member had executed a nomination in favour of the petitioner and, out of ten legal representatives, six had given written no objection, two had not objected and only one had opposed the claim. The revisional authority interfered mainly on the ground that the nomination form contained overwriting and was not unimpeachable. Allowing the writ petitions, the Bombay High Court held that the legal position is well settled that nomination does not create ownership in favour of the nominee and only enables the society to deal with a representative after the death of a member; the nominee holds the property for and on behalf of the legal heirs and succession is governed by personal law (relying on Indrani Wahi v. Registrar, W.B. (2016) 6 SCC 440 and Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424. In the present case, succession had opened in favour of all ten heirs and the majority had supported the petitioner’s membership. The dispute, if any, was essentially inter se between legal heirs and could not be conclusively decided in summary proceedings under the Act. A tenant had no locus to question the internal arrangement among heirs, and the society had not disputed the petitioner’s eligibility under the Act or bye-laws. The revisional authority, therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order granting membership on grounds beyond the limited scope of s. 23 proceedings. The writ petitions were allowed and the rule made absolute. (WP Nos. 2317 & 2320 of 2011, dt. 9-2-2026)
Pravinkumar Jethalal Dave v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar]