Ashok Manohar Shete and Ors. Vs Parvati Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. And Ors. (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court, in Ashok Manohar Shete and Ors. Vs Parvati Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. And Ors., considered a writ petition challenging the order dated 30 September 2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4), acting as the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). The order granted unilateral deemed conveyance of land measuring 774.16 sq. metres in favour of the respondent housing society. The petitioners contended that the original land parcel measured 858.90 sq. metres and accommodated two structures: the society’s residential building and a separate bungalow known as Manohar Bhuvan, owned by the petitioners. They argued that conveying 774.16 sq. metres to the society would leave virtually no land for the bungalow. The society, however, submitted that the bungalow occupied a footprint of approximately 79 sq. metres. The Competent Authority had considered the approved building plans and deducted approximately 84 sq. metres from the total land area while determining the portion to be conveyed to the society.
The High Court observed that the Competent Authority had taken into account the existence of both structures and the approved building plans before determining the conveyance area. Consequently, no palpable error was found in the impugned order warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. Referring to Mazda Constructions Company & Ors. v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. & Ors., Acme Enterprises and Another v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Others, and Tirupati Shopping Centre Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Shabayesha Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that an order granting unilateral deemed conveyance does not finally adjudicate the competing ownership rights or land entitlements of the parties. If the petitioners believed that the society was entitled to a smaller portion of land, the appropriate remedy was to institute a civil suit seeking adjudication of their entitlement to the disputed area. Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving the petitioners at liberty to challenge the extent of land conveyed to the society under the order dated 30 September 2021 through appropriate civil proceedings.
Cases Discussed
- Mazda Constructions Company & Ors. v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (2) ALL MR 278 — Scope of deemed conveyance and ownership rights.
- Acme Enterprises and Another v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Others, 2023 (4) AIR Bom R 817 — Limited nature of the Competent Authority’s inquiry.
- Tirupati Shopping Centre Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Shabayesha Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 Mh LJ 557 — Civil remedies and contractual disputes notwithstanding deemed conveyance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The challenge in the petition is to the Order dated 30 September 2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4) and Competent Authority granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 774.16 sq.mtrs in favour of the Society under the provisions of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (MOFA).
2. I have heard Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1-Society.
3. After considering the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the order of deemed conveyance passed by the Competent Authority, it is seen that the total land taken up for development by the Promoters is 858.90 sq.mtrs. On that land, two structures are constructed, one structure being building of the Society and another structure being a Bungalow named, Manohar Bhuvan. Noticing this, the Competent Authority has segregated the land required for withstanding the bungalow-Manohar Bhuvan by subtracting the area of about 84 sq.mtrs from total area on 858.90 sq.mtrs and has granted deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 774.16 sq.mtrs. Mr. Damle would submit that grant of deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 774.16 sq.mtrs would leave virtually no land for withstanding the bungalow-Manohar Bhuvan owned by the Petitioners. Mr. Kanade, on the other hand, would submit that the footprint of the Bungalow covers land admeasuring 79 sq.mtrs. It appears that the Competent Authority has considered the approved building plans for determining the area required for the building of the Society and for bungalow-Manohar Bhuvan. In my view, therefore no palpable error can be traced in the order passed by the Competent Authority. In the event, the Petitioner believes that the Society is entitled to lesser area than the one convened under the impugned order, the Petitioners will have to file a suit for claiming additional area. By now it is well settled that an order of unilateral deemed conveyance is not determinative of adjudication of rights and entitlement of parties to the land in question. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in Mazda Constructions Company & Ors. Vs. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. & Ors. 2013(2) ALL MR 278, Acme Enterprises and Another V/s. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and Others 2023 (4) AIR Bom.R. 817 and Tirupati Shopping Centre Premises Co-operative Society Ltd V/s. Shabayesha Construction Company Pvt. Ltd (2021) 6 Mh.L.J. 557. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. The Petitioners would however be at liberty to file suit for challenging the area of land convened to the Society vide the impugned Order dated 30 September 2021.
