High Court of Bombay Allows Petition for Conveyance of Recreational Ground Share. The court emphasized the necessity of determining each society's share in the RG area for future redevelopment.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the Petitioner-Society's challenge to the order dated 4 May 2017, which did not grant a specified share in the Recreational Ground (RG) area despite conveying other land rights. The Petitioner had previously secured a deemed conveyance of 2625.84 square meters but sought a proportionate share of 463.38 square meters in the RG area of 1086 square meters. The Petitioner argued that the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to correct the order to reflect this share, while the Respondents contended that the Petitioner had already received what it sought and could not now claim additional rights. The court noted that the issue of the Petitioner’s share in the RG was critical for future redevelopment and that the Competent Authority had erred by not specifying this share in its order. The court ultimately allowed the Petition, setting aside the earlier order and granting the Petitioner the right to challenge the original order for the purpose of securing its exact land entitlement in the RG area.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Deemed Conveyance - Proportionate Share in Recreational Ground - Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Section 11 - The court held that the Competent Authority failed to specify the exact share of the Petitioner-Society in the Recreational Ground area, which is essential for future redevelopment. The court granted liberty to challenge the original order for determining the exact entitlement (Paras 27-33).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Petitioner-Society is entitled to a proportionate share in the Recreational Ground area as per the order dated 4 May 2017.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court set aside the order dated 12 January 2026 and granted liberty to the Petitioner-Society to challenge the order dated 4 May 2017 for the purpose of securing its exact land entitlement in the RG area.

Law Points

  • Deemed conveyance
  • proportionate share
  • common amenities
  • jurisdiction of Competent Authority
  • principles of delay and laches
  • FSI calculation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (11) 20

Writ Petition No.9954 of 2026

2026-11-04

Sandeep V. Marne

Shanay Shah, Janhavee Joshi, Maulik Vora, Femina Jain, Nirman Sharma, Deeshank Doshi, Karl Vatcha, Mayur Khandeparkar, Akshay Doctor, Uma Sharma, S.D. Chipade

Devendra Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shree Rasraj Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., M/s. Brij Builders, Bharatbhushan Vijendra Sharma, Rajesh Vijendra Sharma, Pushpa Surendra Sharma, Sanjay Surendra Sharma, Sudha wd/o Narendra Sharma, Yogesh s/o Narendra Sharma

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the order regarding conveyance of land and share in Recreational Ground.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner-Society sought to secure a proportionate share in the Recreational Ground.

Filing Reason

Aggrieved by the non-conveyance of share in the Recreational Ground.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 4 May 2017 conveyed land but did not specify the RG share.

Issues

Entitlement to proportionate share in the Recreational Ground area Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to modify the order

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued for the necessity of specifying RG share for redevelopment. Respondents contended that the Petitioner had already secured its rights and could not claim further.

Ratio Decidendi

The Competent Authority must specify the exact share of each society in the RG area to avoid future disputes during redevelopment.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the Competent Authority failed to specify the exact share of the Petitioner-Society in the Recreational Ground area. The court granted liberty to challenge the original order for determining the exact entitlement.

Procedural History

The Petitioner filed a Deemed Conveyance Application No.62 of 2016, which was adjudicated, and an order was passed on 4 May 2017. The Petitioner later filed a Miscellaneous Application which was allowed on 12 January 2026 but set aside by this Court on 15 July 2026, granting liberty to challenge the original order.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963: Section 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Considers Challenge to Governor's Suspension of KPSC Chairman Under Article 317(2) of Constitution of India. Writ petition sought certiorari to quash suspension order passed before any reference to Supreme Court under Article ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant's Appeal in Tenancy Dispute — No Violation of Statutory Provisions Established.