Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a cooperative housing society challenging an order of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society granting deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 in favour of a neighbouring society. The petitioner society claimed ownership of CTS Nos.1311, 1312, 1313, 1314 and 1287 at Village Eksar, Tal. Borivali, with buildings A1 and A2 belonging to the petitioner and building A3 belonging to the respondent society. The dispute centered on entitlement to CTS Nos.1314 and 1287, which the petitioner alleged were erroneously included in the deemed conveyance. The facts showed that the petitioner society was registered in 1974 and comprised buildings A1 and A2, while building A3 was constructed in 1979 and occupied by persons who formed a separate society in 2014. In 1982, the petitioner put flat purchasers of building A3 in possession. In 2005, occupants of building A3 expressed desire to bifurcate the plot. In 2007, the petitioner entered into a development agreement with a developer for redevelopment of A1 and A2, leading to disputes and a suit for specific performance by the developer in 2010. In 2013, occupants of building A3 resigned from petitioner society and share value was refunded, enabling registration of respondent society on 15.05.2014. The respondent society filed an application for deemed conveyance on 27.01.2021, and the competent authority passed the impugned order on 05.03.2021 granting conveyance; this was registered on 11.06.2021, and the municipal corporation granted redevelopment permission on 06.10.2021. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 25.10.2021. The legal issues raised included whether the impugned order was passed ex parte and in violation of natural justice, whether the respondent society had any entitlement to CTS Nos.1314 and 1287, and whether the redevelopment permission should be revoked. The petitioner argued that it was the owner in possession of the disputed plots, that the respondent society's building stood only on CTS No.1313, that the application maliciously included excess lands, that the authority acted hand in glove and proceeded without proper notice, and that the respondent relied on a fabricated area certificate by its architect to claim a proportionate share in recreation ground area while excluding the petitioner's building A1 area. The court heard the matter finally by consent of parties and recorded the submissions, but the provided judgment text ends before any analysis or final decision by the court. Therefore, no final holding, ratio, or directions could be extracted from the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Challenge to statutory authority order - Petition filed challenging Deemed Conveyance order dated 05.03.2021 and all consequential actions, including redevelopment permission dated 06.10.2021 - Court heard matter finally by consent of parties but no final determination appears in provided excerpt (Paras 1-2). B) Property Law - Deemed Conveyance - Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Unilateral deemed conveyance - Competent Authority granted certificate in favour of Respondent No.2 on 05.03.2021 and registered on 11.06.2021 despite petitioner's denial of notice; dispute on service and opportunity - Petitioner alleged order was passed ex parte and relied on fabricated area certificate - No final decision in excerpt (Paras 3, 5(xiii)-(xvii), 6(i)-(ii)). C) Cooperative Housing Law - Society Entitlement - Sections 5A and 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Dispute over CTS Nos.1314 and 1287 - Petitioner claimed ownership based on Indenture dated 22.01.1975 while Respondent No.2 claimed proportionate RG share - Court noted disagreement but no final ruling in extracted text (Paras 5(i)-(ii), 6(iii)). D) Procedural Law - Notice and Hearing - Principles of Natural Justice - Competent Authority issued notice and published newspaper advertisement; Petitioner denied receipt; service disputed - This affects validity of ex parte order - The High Court was called upon to examine whether principles of natural justice were violated (Paras 5(xiii)-(xvi), 6(i)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 05.03.2021 granting deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent No.2 under Section 11 of MOFA was illegal, ex parte, and based on fabricated certificates, thereby conveying excess lands bearing CTS Nos.1314 and 1287 to which Respondent No.2 had no entitlement; Whether consequential redevelopment permission dated 06.10.2021 should be revoked.
Law Points
- Deemed conveyance under Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction
- Sale
- Management and Transfer) Act
- 1963
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Notice and opportunity of hearing before competent authority
- Principle of natural justice
- Entitlement to proportionate share in Recreation Ground area
- Unilateral deemed conveyance procedure
