The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has ruled that a dispute over ownership of an individual flat cannot be grounds for stopping the redevelopment of an entire housing society. Allowing the redevelopment of Mulund Sahakar Vishwa Co-operative Housing Society in Mulund West to move forward, the court observed that the interests of hundreds of residents should not be compromised because of litigation concerning one apartment.
The order was delivered on June 22, 2026, by Member-2 AS Wanve, who dismissed an appeal filed by the legal heirs of late Rekha Gangadhar Pagare. The appeal challenged an earlier Co-operative Court decision refusing interim relief to prevent redevelopment.
Background of the dispute
The heirs maintained that Pagare had paid the full consideration of Rs 1.20 lakh in February 1994, received an allotment letter for Flat No. E-26 on May 29 that year and was handed possession. They alleged that the society subsequently demanded an additional Rs 3.67 lakh, which Pagare contested.
They also opposed a consent award obtained by Pushpa B Garud, who claimed ownership of the same flat. The appellants alleged that the society and Garud had entered into consent terms, resulting in an allotment letter and consent award in her favour through fraudulent means. These allegations remain part of the ongoing ownership dispute.
Court’s observations and decision
Rejecting the request to halt redevelopment, the appellate court emphasised the wider impact of such an injunction.
“Other society members should not suffer because of litigation relating to a single flat.”
“Granting the injunction would effectively halt the entire redevelopment project.”
“Redevelopment serves the collective interests of all members.”
The court noted that the ownership dispute could be pursued independently and that redevelopment would not extinguish the appellants’ legal claims. It found no prima facie grounds for an injunction and held that the balance of convenience favoured the society.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, redevelopment was allowed to proceed, and the Flat No. E-26 ownership case will continue before the Co-operative Court. Both parties will bear their own costs.
The dispute dates back to 1994, with proceedings initiated in 2005. The Co-operative Court rejected interim relief on December 4, 2025, before the appellate ruling cleared the way for redevelopment.
Source: Mid-day
