Nominal Shop Occupant in Govt Land Allotted Housing Society Cannot Claim Regular Membership
Judgment dated 4.11.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.14533 of 2026 of Vaitarna Bheema Worli Sagar CHSL Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others with connected nine writ petitions.
Membership of Housing Society for Shops
Worli Sagar CHSL was formed and registered by the promoters thereof with the intention of securing allotment of government land for construction of a residential tenements as per the Government Resolution (GR) dated 12 May 1983 laying down a policy for grant of government land to co operative housing societies. Worli Sagar CHSL applied to the government for allotment of the land. By GR dated 11 February 1987, a parcel of land at Pochkanawala Road, Worli, Mumbai was allotted to Worli Sagar CHSL for a tenure of 99 years. The society was mandated to admit only persons eligible as per G.R. dated 12 May 1983 as its members. Though Worli / Sagar CHSL was supposed to construct only residential building for providing houses to its members, the society applied to the State Government seeking grant of FSI for construction of shops in the building. By letter dated 22 June 1987, the State Government granted permission to Worli Sagar CHSL to use the BUA not exceeding 15% of total FSI for shopping purposes. Accordingly, Worli Sagar CHSL constructed a residential buildings in which about 53 shops were constructed.
The society had given nominal membership to several persons for the shops constructed in the building of Worli Sagar CHSL.
Respondent No.4 Company was the allottee and also nominal member of 10 shops of Worli Sagar CHSL. The Director of the respondent is the occupant of the flat in the society.
In 2023, Worli Sagar Society was divided in five societies including the petitioner Vaitarna Society. The respondent no.4 was admitted as nominal member of the said new society for its 10 shops.
In May, 2026, the respondent no.4 applied for ordinary membership of the petitioner society for his 10 shops.
The conspectus of the above discussion is that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar is not only without jurisdiction but is otherwise unsustainable on merits. The Deputy Registrar has erroneously offered on a platter regular membership to Respondent No.4, although Respondent No. 4 is merely an occupant of the shops under a licence or by virtue of permissive use granted by the Petitioner Society. The documents styled as Deeds of Confirmation/Transfer, brought into existence by Respondent No. 4, do not have any existence in the eyes of law and do not confer upon it any right, title or interest in respect of the shops in question, nor does it make Respondent No. 4 the title holder thereof. In my view therefore, Respondent No.4 would continue to remain mere nominal member in respect of the Shops in its occupation till the occupancy rights are terminated. With termination of occupancy rights, his nominal membership would automatically cease to exist. It cannot remain the member of the society forever. It has secured the nominal membership and occupancy rights with its eyes wide open to this position. It is not entitled to secure regular membership of Petitioner-society in absence of title/ownership in respect of the shops. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and by the Divisional Joint Registrar are thus indefensible and liable to be set aside.
