‘Decision of majority members will be binding’
You could be left out, if you are opposing redevelopment of your society building for frivolous reasons.Updated: Jul 03, 2010 00:32 IST
You could be left out, if you are opposing redevelopment of your society building for frivolous reasons.
If you do that, your neighbours may move to newly built plush buildings and you will continue to stay in a repaired old building.
The Bombay High Court recently allowed a housing society in Andheri (West) to carry on with redevelopment of its seven buildings and repair one of the old buildings to house members opposing redevelopment if they succeed in a pending litigation before co-operative court.
The high court was hearing a petition filed by Godi Kamgar Griha Sanstha, which has 172 members in the seven buildings.
The society had challenged an order issued by Co-operative Appellate Court on March 28, 2008. Acting on the plea of six members, who opposed redevelopment saying that it will burden members with added expenditure of maintenance, the appellate court order had stalled the redevelopment scheme after completion of first phase.
The society and the developer, Bharat Infrastructure and Engineering Ltd, which had spent more than Rs 28 crore to build an 18-storey structure by then, approached the HC.
A single judge bench of Justice S.J. Kathawala has set aside the Co-operative Appellate Court’s order paving the way for second phase of the redevelopment scheme.
The judge has ordered 16 opposing members to vacate within four weeks their tenements so that the developer carries out the second phase of redevelopment.
Justice Kathawala also allowed the society to repair one of the dilapidated buildings and shift the opposing members there, in case they succeed in a litigation, which is still pending with the Co-operative Court.
“A few members of the society cannot be allowed to obstruct the entire redevelopment scheme,” observed Justice Kathawala, reiterating earlier rulings of the high court.
“A decision taken by overwhelming majority of members of a housing society on redevelopment is binding on minority members,” added the judge.
In December 2003, the society had entered into agreement with Bharat Infrastructure and Engineering Ltd. for redevelopment of its property with seven existing buildings.
The developer started redevelopment and completed first 18-storey building by August 2007. On August 8, 2007, the BMC granted Occupation Certificate but the building was lying unoccupied as some of the members obstructed the allotment of flats.
The society and the developer then moved the co-operative court and obtained orders directing the opposing members to evict their respective tenements. But the opposing members moved up and got the order quashed from the appellate court, halting the redevelopment work.