SHAKUNTALA BHARAT KACHARE Vs. SUBHASH PRATAPRAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petition No.2638 of 1995, the challenge is to the declaration dated 19th September, 1992 by the respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(d) who are owners/ developers whereby the said respondents have submitted the Bharat Vihar building standing on survey No. 19/1-A, Erandwane, Pune to the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1970"). The said writ petition has been filed by the purchasers of the flats in the said building. In so far as Writ Petition No.571 of 1995 is concerned, the writ petition has been filed by the owners/developers challenging the order dated 26th September, 1994 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeals), Pune Division, by which order the revision application filed by the petitioners in the companion Writ Petition No.2638 of 1995 came to be allowed and the issue as regards the registration of the society formed by the flat purchasers came to be remanded to the Deputy Registrar for a de novo consideration.

(2.) The facts in brief which are necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petitions can be stated thus :-

(3.) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.571 of 1995 claim to be the owners of the land bearing S. No.l9/l(A) situate at Erandwane, Dist. Pune. The said property was kept joint amongst the co-parceners and was retained as the ownership property of Bharat @ Arjun Mahadeo Kachare. The petitioners in the said writ petition decided to develop the property through M/s. Ajay Construction Company which was a sole proprietorship concern of the said Arjun Mahadeo Kachare. In consonance with the said decision, plans were submitted to the planning authority i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation. It appears that thereafter a suit came to be filed amongst the members of the joint family and against Arjun Mahadeo Kachare for partition of the said property. The said suit came to be numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 1087 of 1991. On 4th October, 1991, a compromise decree came to be passed in the said suit by which distribution of the said property including the flats and shops constructed therein came about. It appears that the said Construction Company entered into an agreement for sale of 23 flats and 12 shops with various persons including the petitioners. The construction of the building was completed in or about September, 1992 after which the property was subjected to the provisions of the Act of 1970 and a declaration by the respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(d) came to be registered with the competent authority as required by the said Act. It appears that contemporaneously the flat purchasers who are the petitioners in the companion writ petition, with a view to register a society formed by the said flat purchasers, addressed a letter dated 23rd October, 1992 to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for purposes of reserving the name of the proposed society as Bharat Vihar Co-operative Housing Limited. The Deputy Registrar by his order dated 8th February, 1993 rejected the said application of the flat purchasers on the ground that since the property has already been subjected to the Act of 1970, no co-operative society can be formed and registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Against the said decision of the Deputy Registrar, the flat purchasers approached the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeals), Pune Division, Pune, by filing a revision application. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.571 of 1995 i.e. the owners/ developers filed their reply to the said revision application. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, vide his order dated 26th September, 1994, allowed the said revision application and remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar for a de novo consideration of the application for registration filed by the flat purchasers. It appears that on such remand the Deputy Registrar vide his order dated 20th December, 1994 has registered the society by the name of Bharat Vihar Co-operative Housing Society and has issued the registration certificate bearing the said date which registration certificate is annexed to the companion writ petition as Exhibit-D at page 44. Indubitably, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.571 of 1995 have not challenged the said registration dated 20th December, 1994 and in the said circumstances since the subsequent event of the registration of the Society has not been challenged by moving any amendment in the said petition being Writ Petition No.571 of 1995, the same has become infructuous and has to be disposed of as such. Accordingly, Rule is discharged in the said Writ Petition No.571 of 1995.