Cancellation of Society Membership

Experts warn that cancellation of housing society membership for dissenters opposing redevelopment is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and fundamentally flawed in law

The recommendation suggesting cancellation of housing society membership of residents opposing redevelopment is not only arbitrary but also fundamentally flawed in law and in spirit of constitutional guarantees.

Membership vs. Ownership of Property

A. It is a settled legal principle that membership of a co-operative society and ownership of immovable property are two distinct legal rights.
B. Membership is governed by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, whereas ownership rights over flats are protected under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), and other property-related statutes.
C. Cancelling membership cannot extinguish a citizen’s constitutional and statutory right to property, which continues to vest in the individual under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

A. Article 300A (Right to Property): Though not a Fundamental Right, it remains a Constitutional Right—no person can be deprived of their property except by authority of law. A “recommendation” or “resolution” of a panel or federation cannot override this guarantee.
B. Article 14 (Equality Before Law): Targeting dissenting members amounts to discriminatory treatment.
C. Article 19(1)(a) & (c): Citizens have the right to express opposition and to associate in lawful ways. To penalize dissent undermines democracy and free speech.

Co-operative Spirit vs. Commercial Interests

A. Redevelopment has become a multi-thousand crore industry in Maharashtra. Instead of safeguarding members’ rights, such recommendations appear to favour Managing Committees and Federations seeking to capture the redevelopment market.
B. The principle of “co-operation” under co-operative law cannot be stretched to mean “compulsion to surrender property rights.”

Legal Position on Redevelopment Disputes

C. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Supreme Court in several judgments have emphasised that individual rights of flat owners cannot be bulldozed merely on the basis of majority.
D. The Model Bye-Laws framed under Section 79A directives do not permit arbitrary termination of membership for exercising one’s legal rights.
E. Further, any act of cancellation of membership without due process would be ultra vires the parent statute and liable to be struck down.

Public Policy & Natural Justice

A. Law cannot be interpreted to create a regime where dissent is silenced and residents are coerced into redevelopment.
B. Any attempt to cancel membership for lawful opposition would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary deprivation of rights, and a fraud on the Constitution.

Conclusion

The so-called recommendation to cancel the membership of residents opposing redevelopment has no force of law and is legally untenable. It reflects a disturbing trend of diluting individual property rights to serve vested commercial interests.

Citizens must remember:

• OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IS INVIOLABLE EXCEPT BY AUTHORITY OF LAW.
• MEMBERSHIP IN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS MERELY A FORM OF ASSOCIATION, NOT OWNERSHIP.
• ANY ATTEMPT TO COERCE DISSENTERS BY THREATENING CANCELLATION OF MEMBERSHIP WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL, AND LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN IN COURT.

Satyanarayan Gaur,

CHS Consultant (99 69 44 65 00)