The Bombay High Court has set aside a corrigendum issued by the Competent Authority in 2020, which had jointly assigned the land in question to Prem Villa Co-operative Housing Society and Uma Deep Co-operative Housing Society. The corrigendum was issued after a period of five years following separate Deemed Conveyance orders passed in 2014, allocating portions of the land to each society. The court ruled that the corrigendum exceeded the authority of procedural review, as it sought to alter substantive findings rather than rectify a typographical error. The judgment emphasizes that procedural review cannot substitute the power of statutory review, which was not available under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).

1. Petitioner and Respondents:

• Petitioner: Prem Villa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
• Respondents: Uma Deep Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No.1), District Deputy Registrar (Respondent No.2), and others.

2. Original Orders (28.02.2014):

• The Competent Authority issued separate Deemed Conveyance orders in favor of both societies:
  • Uma Deep Society: 529.50 sq. meters.
  • Prem Villa Society: 659.50 sq. meters.

3. Corrigendum Issued (14.01.2020):

• The corrigendum altered the earlier orders, assigning the land jointly to both societies.
• The corrigendum was issued after a lapse of five years, which the petitioner argued was without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

4. Petitioner's Arguments:

• The Deemed Conveyance orders were already acted upon, and a unilateral deed of assignment had been registered in favor of Prem Villa Society in 2014.
• The corrigendum attempted to review and change the original order rather than correct a minor error, violating the principle of procedural review under MOFA.

5. Respondent's Arguments:

• The corrigendum was necessary to rectify a miscalculation in the allocation of land and FSI between the two societies.
• It was argued that this was a procedural review to correct the original orders' error.

6. Court's Findings:

• The corrigendum exceeded the permissible scope of procedural review, as it attempted to modify substantive findings of the earlier orders.
• The court emphasized that statutory review powers were not provided under MOFA, and such a review could not be done under the guise of procedural rectification.

7. Conclusion:

• The court quashed the corrigendum and restored the original Deemed Conveyance orders from 2014.
• It clarified that the Respondent No. 1 could seek appropriate legal remedies to establish title, if required.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that the power of procedural review, which is inherent to correct typographical or procedural errors, cannot be used to substitute substantive decisions made under law. The corrigendum issued by the Competent Authority after five years was beyond its jurisdiction, as it sought to change the division of land already settled by a lawful order. The court highlighted that such corrections must fall strictly within the scope of MOFA, which does not provide for substantive review powers to the Competent Authority.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA): Particularly Section 11 dealing with Deemed Conveyance, and Section 5A, concerning procedural authority.
• Constitution of India, Article 226: For invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Subjects:

 Deemed Conveyance, Procedural Review, Housing Societies, Land Ownership.#MOFA  #DeemedConveyance #CooperativeHousing #PropertyLaw