A recent judgement of the Telangana High Court (HC) in Sarojini v. State of Telangana[1] has reopened an important debate about the legal status of Owners’ Associations and Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) in the State. The Court held that an Owners’ Association formed solely for the maintenance and management of a private apartment complex does not serve a “public purpose” within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001.[2] Consequently, such associations cannot ordinarily be registered under the Act. The Court clarified that such associations may seek registration under another legal framework but did not specify which framework should be adopted.

The uncertainty surrounding the registration of Owners’ Associations did not originate with the Sarojini judgement alone. Earlier judicial decisions had already exposed similar conceptual difficulties regarding the legal character of such associations. In Nuggets Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh,[3] the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an association formed exclusively for the maintenance and management of a private apartment complex does not satisfy the requirement of “public purpose” under the Societies Registration Act because its activities remain confined to a closed group of residents. Conversely, in Kalakuteers v. State of Telangana,[4] the Telangana High Court recognised that Owners’ Associations and RWAs could validly seek registration under the cooperative law framework and that the State could not compel citizens to adopt only one statutory model where multiple legal mechanisms were available.

While the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) contemplates the formation of associations of allottees, it does not provide a comprehensive framework governing their legal status, membership, voting rights, internal governance, dispute resolution, or financial accountability in Telangana. In fact, the model Agreement for Sale prescribed under the Telangana RERA Rules requires Owners’ Associations or RWAs to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001—a requirement that now stands in direct tension with the Sarojini judgment.

But while the Sarojini judgment answered where Owners’ Associations and RWAs cannot register, it left unresolved, particularly for those already registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001, the far more important question: under which law should they register, and what framework will govern their functioning?

The Supreme Court itself has recognised, in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh,[6] that the meaning of “public purpose” is not rigid and must evolve with changing societal needs. Viewed in this context, a narrow distinction between “private apartment management” and “public purpose” may not adequately account for the realities of modern urban governance.

Owners’ Associations and RWAs are intrinsically linked to property ownership; their powers operate upon rights arising from ownership itself. This understanding is reflected in apartment ownership laws across India. For example, the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987[7] recognises the concept of undivided interest in common facilities and envisages a framework where apartment owners collectively administer shared property. Similar legislation exists in several other states.[8]

One alternative presently followed in Telangana is registration under the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act or the Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act (TMACS Act) (collectively, the Co-operative Statutes). At first glance, this appears reasonable because these statutes provide an established framework for democratic management, elections, financial accountability, and dispute resolution. However, upon closer examination, they reveal a serious legal inconsistency that affects the rights of property owners.

One of the most significant issues arising from registration under the Co-operative Statutes is the restriction on dual membership. The proviso to Section 19(1)(a) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 provides that an applicant is not eligible for membership if they are “already a member of a Cooperative Society registered under this Act, or any other Coop. Act providing the same or similar services.” An identical restriction appears in Section 19(1) of the TMACS Act, which provides that a person may be admitted as a member “subject, however, to the condition…that the Applicant is not already a member of a Co-operative Society registered under this Act, or the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, providing the same or similar services.” These restrictions were designed for traditional co-operative institutions—such as agricultural, credit, or consumer co-operatives—where membership is voluntary and based on a common economic objective.

To illustrate: consider a person—say, Ms. Preethi—who owns apartments in two separate residential complexes, each governed by its own Owners’ Association registered as a co-operative society. Because both associations pursue similar objects, i.e., maintenance and management of residential property, Ms. Preethi may legally be permitted to hold membership in only one of them. This creates an inequitable situation: Ms. Preethi bears the full obligations and responsibilities of ownership in both properties, yet may be denied membership and participation rights in one association solely because of the statutory restriction on dual membership in co-operative societies with similar objects.

Membership in both associations would potentially constitute a violation of the Co-operative Statutes—an absurd outcome for a person who has lawfully purchased two properties. This creates a direct inconsistency with general property law. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 places no restriction on a person purchasing or owning multiple residential properties. Article 300A of the Constitution of India protects the right to property, providing that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. While Article 300A principally operates against State action, the dual-membership restriction is itself a statutory limitation—one that indirectly curtails a significant incident of ownership, namely the right to participate in the administration and management of one’s own property.

The result is a legislative gap. Owners’ Associations and RWAs are neither traditional societies nor conventional co-operative societies, and courts across jurisdictions have treated them as bodies created for collective administration of property rather than mere social organisations.[9] Without a dedicated legal framework, both associations and individual owners remain in an uncertain legal position.

The solution does not lie in stretching existing laws beyond their original purpose. Instead, there is a compelling need for dedicated legislation that recognises the unique nature of Owners’ Associations and RWAs. Such a framework should address, at minimum: automatic membership arising from ownership; guaranteed participation rights for every owner irrespective of the number of properties owned; voting rights; governance and election procedures; powers and limitations of executive committees; financial transparency and accountability; dispute resolution mechanisms; management of common areas, amenities, and facilities; and the legal status and personality of the association itself.

A legislative model already exists. Several states now provide for registration of apartment owners’ associations directly under dedicated apartment ownership statutes, bypassing the societies registration and cooperative law frameworks entirely. The Odisha Apartment (Ownership and Management) Act, 2023 and the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 2022 are both in force and provide for registration with a designated competent authority, mandating a single association per project with built-in dispute resolution and financial accountability. West Bengal has operated a similar framework under its Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 for over five decades. Most recently, the Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Bill, 2025, passed by both Houses of the Karnataka Legislature in August 2026 and awaiting the Governor’s assent, goes further by expressly prohibiting registration of apartment owners’ associations under any other law. These precedents offer a concrete template that Telangana could adapt to resolve the very quandary the Sarojini judgment has exposed.

The Sarojini judgment answered one question: Owners’ Associations and RWAs ordinarily cannot register under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 because they do not serve a “public purpose” in the statutory sense. But it left them in a quandary, particularly those already registered, and left unresolved a far more important question that every Owners’ Association and RWA continues to face: if not here, then where?

The views expressed are for general informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice specific to their circumstances.