Bombay High Court
Shah And Company Thr. Proprietor Rajan ... vs The Competent Authority And The ... on 5 May, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:21115
wp8188-2022-J.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8188 OF 2022
Shah and Company, through it's
ATUL proprietor Rajan Tarachand Shah
GANESH
KULKARNI Since deceased through heirs and
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
legal representatives
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.05.05
11:29:47 +0530
1A. Anjali Rajan Shah,
Age Adult, Occupation Business
1B. Gaurav Rajan Shah,
Age Adult, Occupation Business
1C. Pooja Rishiraj Bhatia,
Age Adult, Occupation Business,
Nos.1A to 1C all residing at
Kshitij Kunj, 2163, Sadashiv Peth,
Near Neelayam Theatre, Pune ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Competent Authority and the
District Deputy Registrar, having
office at Sakhar Sankul, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune 411 005
2. Raj Mayur No. 2 Cooperative Housing
Society Limited, a housing society
registered under the Maharashtra
Cooperative societies Act, 1960,
having address at Final Plot No.14,
CTS NO.18, Erandwane, Pune,
through it's Chairman Uday B. Shinde,
Age Adult, Occupation Advocate,
R/at Final Plot No.14, CTS No.18,
Erandwane, Pune
1
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 :::
wp8188-2022-J.doc
3. Vikrant Enterprises, having address at
Shop No.4, Raj Mayur No.2 CHSL.,
Final Plot No.14, CTS No.18,
Erandwane, Pune 411 004
4. Peer Khwaja Sayed Hisomoddin Kattale,
Janji Khisti alias Thorla Shaikh Salla
Dargan Trust, through Matavalli
4A. Sayyed Vahiuddin Faruquddin,
Age Adult, Occupation Not known
4B. Kazi Mutavalli Indamdar,
Age Adult, Occupation Not known
4A and 4B residing at 23,
Shanivar Peth, Pune 411 030 ... Respondents
Mr. Siddhartha R. Ronghe for the petitioner.
Mrs. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav for respondent No.2.
Mr. Sujay Gangal for respondent No.3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 29, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : MAY 5, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, assails the legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17 February 2022 passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Pune, being Respondent No.1, in Deemed Conveyance Application No.133 of 2021 instituted by Respondent No.2. By the said order, unilateral deemed conveyance 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc has been granted in favour of Respondent No.2. The Petitioner also challenges the consequential Certificate issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 11(4) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, certifying conveyance in favour of Respondent No.2, in so far as it pertains to land admeasuring 2473.13 sq. mtrs. and constructed area admeasuring 7297.47 sq. mtrs. forming part of CTS No.18, Final Plot No.14, situated at Erandwane, Pune.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are as follows. The property bearing CTS No.18, Final Plot No.14, situated at Erandwane, Pune, admeasures 9307.73 sq. mtrs. On 19 February 1970, Respondent No.4 Trust, acting through its Trustees, executed a Lease Deed in favour of M/s Shree Estate Investments in respect of the said property admeasuring 9304 sq. mtrs., excluding an area of 576 sq. mtrs., for a period of 98 years. Thereafter, on 30 October 1972, Shri Rajan Tarachand Shah, partner of Shree Estate Investments, executed a Sub-lease Deed in favour of M/s Shah and Co. in respect of the same property. Subsequently, in the years 1977 and 1978, Respondent No.4 instituted Civil Suit No.2417 of 1977 and Civil Suit No.1355 of 1978 before the Court of Small Causes at Pune.
3. It further appears that on 31 March 1981, the Trustees of Respondent No.4 and the partner of Shree Estate Investments executed receipt and consent terms in the backdrop of the aforesaid civil suits. Thereafter, on 16 March 1983, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune, granted registration to Respondent No.2 Society. On 1 April 1983, Rajmayur No.2 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. entered into an agreement with a Trust 3 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc known as Shree Ganesh Trust, registered under the Indian Trusts Act. On 30 April 1983, the Pune Municipal Corporation sanctioned development plans under the provisions of the MRTP Act, 1966, permitting construction of three buildings, namely A1, A2 and A3, on a portion of the land bearing CTS No.18, Final Plot No.14. Thereafter, on 24 March 1986, Buildings A2 and A3 came to be constructed pursuant to the sanctioned plans, and individual agreements for sale were executed between the respective purchasers and Shree Ganesh Trust.
4. On 18 January 1999, the City Survey Officer, Pune, passed an order directing restoration of mutation entry dated 8 October 1972 and deletion of mutation entry dated 5 October 1982. Subsequently, on 25 June 2013, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, in exercise of powers under Section 3(C) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Development) Act, 1971, notified an area admeasuring 6497.92 sq. mtrs. as a Slum Rehabilitation Area out of the total area of 9307.73 sq. mtrs. of CTS No.18, Final Plot No.14. Thereafter, on 7 October 2013, the Competent Authority passed an order under Section 11(3) of the MOFA Act, 1963, and issued a consequential certificate under Section 11(4), thereby conveying an area admeasuring 6831 sq. ft. (634 sq. mtrs.) in favour of Rajmayur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. in Deemed Conveyance Application No.103 of 2013.
5. On 30.08.2021, the Architect of Respondent No.2 Society issued a certificate pertaining to plot area statement, FSI statement and tenement statement in accordance with the sanctioned plans. Thereafter, on 30 September 2021, Respondent No.2 Society 4 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc preferred Deemed Conveyance Application No.133 of 2021 under Section 11(3) of the MOFA Act, 1963, seeking conveyance of land admeasuring 9304 sq. mtrs. out of CTS No.18, Final Plot No.14, Erandwane, Pune. On 11 October 2021, the Petitioner filed its reply opposing the said application.
6. In the said reply, the Petitioner specifically contended that it is ready and willing to convey an area admeasuring 1343.09 sq. mtrs. together with constructed area of Buildings A2 and A3 admeasuring 4248.70 sq. mtrs. in favour of Respondent No.2 Society. Thereafter, on 13.12.2021, Respondent No.3 filed its reply along with written submissions in the said proceedings. Ultimately, on 17 February 2022, Respondent No.1, acting as the Competent Authority, passed the impugned order under Section 11(3) of the MOFA Act, 1963 and issued a consequential certificate under Section 11(4), thereby granting conveyance of land admeasuring 2473.13 sq. mtrs. out of 9307.73 sq. mtrs., along with constructed area admeasuring 7297.47 sq. mtrs., in favour of Respondent No.2 Society. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been instituted.
7. Mr. Siddhartha R. Ronghe, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, invited attention to the sanctioned layout plan and submitted that the layout contemplates three buildings, namely Blocks A, B and C. It was urged that out of the buildings A1, A2 and A3 forming part of the said layout, Buildings A2 and A3 have been constructed on a portion of land bearing CTS No.18, Final Plot No.14. It was further submitted that Building A1 remains incomplete as on date. Learned counsel further submitted 5 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc that the total built-up area of the Petitioner-Society is 7297.47 sq. mtrs.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, with reference to the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018, submitted that in terms of the said Resolution, the Respondent No.2-Society would be entitled only to an area admeasuring 1343 sq. mtrs. corresponding to the plinth area of Buildings A2 and A3, along with constructed area admeasuring 4864.98 sq. mtrs. It was contended that such entitlement is clearly demarcated under the said policy framework.
9. It was further submitted that the Competent Authority has granted an area in excess of the entitlement of Respondent No.2- Society, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable. Learned counsel urged that the original application filed by Respondent No.2 ought to have been rejected. It was also contended that another co-operative society is already registered in respect of the subject property, and that the Petitioner has already effected conveyance of land in favour of the said society. On these grounds, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed.
10. Per contra, Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2, invited attention to the impugned order and submitted that the Petitioners failed to place on record any Architect's certificate before the Competent Authority. It was submitted that the Architect's Certificate dated 13 August 2021, produced by Respondent No.2, clearly reflects that the gross plot 6 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc area as per sanctioned plan is 9171.00 sq. mtrs., the net plot area after road widening is 8131 sq. mtrs., and the plinth area of Buildings A2 and A3 is 1824.27 sq. mtrs. The said certificate further indicates that the total constructed area of Respondent No.2-Society is 7297.49 sq. mtrs., along with open space admeasuring 917.11 sq. mtrs. It was thus contended that in absence of any contrary technical material produced by the Petitioners, they are precluded from disputing the extent of area determined in favour of Respondent No.2.
11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 further submitted that no material pertaining to the alleged acquisition for slum rehabilitation purposes was placed before the Competent Authority by the Petitioners. It was therefore contended that the Competent Authority rightly relied upon the Architect's Certificate produced by Respondent No.2 and proceeded to pass the impugned order, thereby granting conveyance of land admeasuring 2473.13 sq. mtrs. along with constructed area admeasuring 7297.47 sq. mtrs. in favour of Respondent No.2-Society. On these premises, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
12. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and to the record placed before this Court. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 17 February 2022 passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Pune, by which deemed conveyance has been granted in favour of respondent no. 2 society in respect of land admeasuring 2473.13 sq. mtrs. and constructed area admeasuring 7297.47 sq. mtrs. out of CTS No. 18, Final Plot No. 14, situated at Erandwane, Pune. The petitioners 7 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc say that the authority has gone beyond the true entitlement of respondent no. 2. It is their submission that on the sanctioned layout there were three blocks, namely A, B and C, and out of the concerned buildings, only A2 and A3 stand constructed on a part of the land. They further submit that Building A1 is still incomplete and that the entitlement of respondent no. 2 could not have been carried beyond the plinth area and constructed area asserted by the petitioners. According to them, the grant is excessive and, therefore, unlawful.
13. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 and on that basis have argued that respondent no. 2 society could not have claimed more than 1343 sq. mtrs. as plinth area of A2 and A3 buildings, together with constructed area of 4864.98 sq. mtrs. They say that the Competent Authority was bound to regulate the conveyance in accordance with such entitlement and not on the basis of an enlarged claim. The petitioners have further pointed out that another society is already registered and that land has already been conveyed in its favour. On this foundation, the prayer is for setting aside of the impugned order and rejection of the original application of respondent no. 2.
14. On the other hand, respondent no. 2 has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the petitioners never produced any Architect's certificate before the Competent Authority. The certificate dated 13 August 2021 produced by respondent no. 2 shows, according to them, the gross area as per sanctioned plan as 9171.00 sq. mtrs., the net plot area after road 8 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc widening as 8131 sq. mtrs., and the plinth area of A2 and A3 buildings as 1824.27 sq. mtrs. It also reflects the total built up area of the society as 7297.49 sq. mtrs. and open space of 917.11 sq. mtrs. The stand of Respondent No. 2 is that in absence of any technical material from the petitioners, the petitioners cannot now dispute the area found by the authority.
15. Respondent no. 2 has further submitted that no material of any actual acquisition for slum purposes was placed before the Competent Authority. Therefore, the authority was justified in acting upon the Architect's certificate and in passing the impugned order. It is urged that the order is within jurisdiction, that it is supported by record, and that no ground of manifest illegality is made out. The writ petition, according to Respondent No. 2, is therefore not maintainable in substance, because the challenge is essentially about area and entitlement.
16. The Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018, when read in its plain terms, indicates that in cases where more than one co- operative housing society exists upon the same larger plot, the conveyance shall be for the area be worked out on proportionate basis having regard to the structure standing, its usage, and its share in the overall layout. In the present matter, the respondent society has placed on record an Architect's certificate which specifically proceeds on this principle of proportionate calculation. The certificate, as seen, does not claim entire plot or any excessive entitlement but attempts to correlate the constructed portion, open spaces, and usable area with the total layout. The working of such certificate shows that the Architect has taken into account 9 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc sanctioned plans, built-up area, and corresponding share in the plot. There is no material to indicate that such calculation is arbitrary or made without reference to the sanctioned layout. It appears to be based on technical inputs which fall within domain of an Architect. On the other hand, though the petitioners have disputed the extent of area, no independent Architect's certificate or technical material has been placed either before the Competent Authority to demonstrate that the calculation made by the respondent's Architect is incorrect. Mere assertion that lesser area ought to have been granted does not displace a technical certificate, particularly when such certificate is based on sanctioned plan. The absence of any counter material creates a situation where the Competent Authority was left with only one set of technical data. In such circumstances, the authority cannot be expected to undertake independent technical exercise without any supporting material.
17. It is also required to be noted that the Competent Authority, while acting under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, exercises summary jurisdiction. In such proceedings, the authority is not expected to enter into a detailed adjudication of complex technical disputes unless clear material is produced by both sides. Where one party produces a duly supported Architect's certificate and the other party fails to produce any counter evidence of equal nature, the authority is justified in relying upon the available technical material. Therefore, when the Competent Authority has accepted the proportionate area as calculated by the respondent's Architect, such acceptance cannot be termed as suffering from any manifest 10 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc illegality or perversity. The decision is based on material placed before it and also aligns with the framework contemplated under the Government Resolution dated 22nd June 2018. Interference in writ jurisdiction, in such situation, would require clear demonstration that the calculation is fundamentally flawed or legally impermissible, which is not shown in the present case.
18. In view of these aspects, the acceptance of proportionate area by the Competent Authority stands on reasonable foundation. The dispute raised by the petitioners, at best, reflects a disagreement on quantification, which would require detailed examination of technical and factual aspects. Such enquiry is not suitable in present proceedings. Hence, no ground is made out to disturb the finding recorded by the Competent Authority on this issue.
19. The legal position is no longer in doubt. The decision in Valentine Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1833, read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. (2025) 7 SCC 249, makes the position clear that the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA exercises summary jurisdiction. Such authority does not finally and conclusively determine title. The remedy of a civil suit remains open to an aggrieved party. The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, is expected to interfere only where the order suffers from manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity of such degree that it stares in the face. Where the controversy is mainly about extent of area, title, entitlement, or 11 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc competing claims as to larger or lesser area, the writ court is to be slow and restrained.
20. Tested on that touchstone, the challenge of the petitioners does not merit interference. The whole case of the petitioners is that respondent no. 2 ought to have been granted a lesser area and that the Competent Authority accepted an excessive claim. This is not a case where the order is shown to be void on the face of it. It is not shown that the authority acted without jurisdiction. It is not shown that a mandatory statutory provision was ignored in a manner which would render the order illegal. What is argued is, in substance, that the area granted is too much, that the sanctioned layout should have been read differently, and that the entitlement of Respondent No. 2 should have been confined to a smaller extent. Such controversy is not fit for final adjudication in writ proceeding.
21. On overall assessment, this Court is unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from such apparent illegality or perversity as would justify interference. The petitioners have not made out a case of jurisdictional failure. The grievance is principally that more area has been granted than what, according to them, was due. The remedy of civil suit is open, and that remedy is the proper one for adjudication of title, entitlement, extent of area, and effect of rival documents.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:
(i) The Writ Petition stands dismissed; 12 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 ::: wp8188-2022-J.doc (ii) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2022
passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Pune, in Deemed Conveyance Application No. 133 of 2021, along with the consequential Certificate issued under Section 11(4) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, is upheld;
(iii) It is clarified that the observations made in the present judgment are confined to examination of the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction and shall not be construed as adjudication on questions of title, extent of entitlement, or inter se rights of the parties;
(iv) The Petitioner is at liberty to institute an appropriate civil suit before a competent civil court for adjudication of its rights, including issues relating to title, entitlement, and extent of area, in accordance with law;
(v) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open to be urged before the competent civil court;
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 13 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:26:30 :::