Holding the society above the builder, the Bombay high court has ruled that it is only the former that can initiate action against a member opposing redevelopment. Observing that the members of a co-operative housing society are left with no protection if a redevelopment project of the society is stalled, the court last week dismissed a plea filed by a builder-developer. It held that even if a single member of the society is against redevelopment, he/she cannot be ousted forcibly by the builder.
Interpreting the court’s order, housing activists say that although the majority (70%) consent still holds good for a redevelopment agreement, only the society can initiate action against a cooperative member as per the redevelopment rules laid down by the government earlier this year. The rules prescribe public bids by developers for redevelopment, setting up of scrutiny committees and the approval of bids at general body meetings.
The court observed that if the construction of a new building in the place of an old one was interrupted, “save and except the penalty and termination, no other protection is available to the members of the society. In these circumstances, there is no certainty of a permanent alternate accommodation.”
Dismissing Acknur Construction Private Limited’s petition against Fardoon Apartment Cooperative Housing Society in Khar, the court held that a majority consent for redevelopment of a society was not binding on the few opposed to it, unless the project would have benefited all of them.
The court noted that “several vital aspects are lost sight of, and the rights of members are not given serious considerations” in the directives issued by the state for redevelopment of old buildings of cooperative housing societies. The directives have not mentioned how the societies should deal with the TDR/FSI and other rights attached to the land, it said. As a result, the society not only loses the existing building structure, but is also divested of the title to the land on which it stands if a project gets stalled. “It is ultimately a housing society, and till the new structure comes up, there is not going to be any building or tenement. So, a mere continuation of membership on paper is of no practical value,” the court held.
Comments