Bombay High Court
Jaywant Ramchandra Keni vs The Competent Authority District Dy ... on 19 January, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2024:BHC-OS:1451-DB
k 1/7 38 wpl 8893.23 os.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8893 OF 2023
JAYWANT RAMCHANDRA KENI ....PETITIONER
V/S
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ....RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Chetan Yadav i/b M/s. VJ Juris for the Petitioner.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 9/State.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Amogh Singh, Mr. Santosh Pathak,
Mr. Nimish Lotlikar, Mr. Chirag Thakkar & Mr. Kailash Pathak i/b
M/s. Law Origin for Respondent Nos.2 and 7.
Mr. Amogh Singh with Ms. Krutisha Pandey & Ms. Monika Shekawat i/b
Mr. Bhavin Bhatia for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 19, 2024.
P.C.:
1 By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges order dated 20 December
2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar and Competent Authority
issuing corrigendum to the certificate of deemed conveyance dated 2 July
2014. The only change that the corrigendum effects to the original
certificate of deemed conveyance dated 2 July 2014 is to grant undivided
right and proportionate share in the recreational ground and internal
road in addition to the land admeasuring 1600 sq. mtrs. on which the
building of the Society is constructed.
k 2/7 38 wpl 8893.23 os.doc
2 I have heard Mr. Yadav, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner. He would submit that having passed the order of deemed
conveyance on 2 July 2014 the Competent Authority became functus
officio and did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the application filed
by the Society for issuance of any corrigendum. That by issuance of
corrigendum, the order dated 2 July 2014 has been materially altered.
That the Competent Authority is not vested with jurisdiction of review
and therefore it could not have entertained the application filed by the
Society for correction of the order dated 2 July 2014. In support of his
contention he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Kashish Park
Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 3 Mah LJ 778.
3 Mr. Yadav would further submit that the grant of undivided rights
and proportionate share to the Society in the internal road affects the
undertaking issued by the Petitioner to the Municipal Corporation at the
time of sanction of plans. That as per that undertaking, the Petitioner had
undertaken that the neighbouring plot owner/occupier shall be
permitted to use the internal road without causing any obstruction. That
if the internal road is conveyed to the Societies, they are likely to obstruct
use of internal road by the adjoining landlord occupier.
4 The next objection of Mr. Yadav is that the Respondent No.2-Society
had filed an application for amendment for impleadment of the rest of
the Societies and without deciding that application. Respondent No.2-
Society had also prayed for altering the prayers of the application for
k 3/7 38 wpl 8893.23 os.doc
issuance of corrigendum. That without deciding that application, the
Competent Authority proceeded to pass impugned order dated 20
December 2022 issuing corrigendum.
5 I have heard Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondent Nos.2 and 7 and Mr. Singh, the learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent Nos.3.
6 So far as the first objection of the Petitioner about lack of
jurisdiction with the Competent Authority to issue corrigendum is
concerned, the Petitioner has sought to contend that the corrigendum
effects material change in the original order dated 2 July 2014. It appears
that there are total 7 buildings in respect of which 7 societies have been
formed. The buildings of the 7 societies have consumed the FSI of entire
plot of land in respect of which the layout was sanctioned. It appears that
in respect of the entire plot of land on which layout is sanctioned, there is
a common recreational ground and an internal road. The Society initially
filed the application for issuance of deemed conveyance in the year 2014
without realizing that it was also required to seek conveyance of
undivided interest and proportionate share in the recreational ground
and internal road. Society's application was allowed on 2 July 2014
conveying only land admeasuring 1600 sq. mtrs. on which the Society's
building is constructed. Later the Government of Maharashtra issued
Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 directing as under:
k 4/7 38 wpl 8893.23 os.doc
"1) If there are many buildings on one plot and have a separate
co-operative society of each building and if construction of some of
them is incomplete then while making Deemed Conveyance of
completed building, undivided share of occupancy right in the
proportion of construction on the proportionate area of the
construction of the building of such society or ground coverage or
plinth area, similarly open space, common services and facilities,
roads should be given."
6 It is on account of the aforesaid directives issued by the
Government of Maharashtra that it became mandatory to grant
proportionate area of open space, common services, facilities and roads
while deciding application of one Co-operative Society whose building is
located in a layout consisting of multiple buildings. It is on account of the
issuance of GR dated 22 June 2018 that the Respondent No.2 Society filed
an application for issuance of corrigendum. All that is done by the
Competent Authority is to bring earlier order of deemed conveyance
dated 2 June 2014 in tune with the GR dated 22 June 2018. In fact the
Competent Authority has referred to provisions of GR dated 22 June
2018 and has observed in para 3 of the order as under:
"३. दि .२२.६.२०१८ रोजीचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात रोजीचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात दिन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातर्णयामध्ये शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात असे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात स्पष्टपर्णे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात न निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातमु करण्यात
आले शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात ले शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात आहे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात की, एका भु खंडावर अन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्याते शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातक इमारती असतील व Á त्ये शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात क इमारतीची
स्वतं ¥ सहकारी गृ हदिन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातमार्ण सं स्था असे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात ल आदिर्ण त्यापै की काही इमारतींचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात
बां धकाम अपूर्ण असल्यास, पूर्ण झाले शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात ल्या इमारतीचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात मान निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातीव अदिभहस्तांतरर्ण
करतान निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्याता अशा सं स्थे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात च्या इमारतीच्या बां धकामाच्या Á मार्णात जागे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात चे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात क्षे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात ¥फळ
(proportionate area) दिकंवा Ground coverage दिकंवा plinth area, तसे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात च
मोकळी जागा, सामु ादियक से शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात वा सु दिवधा, रस्ते शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात यांचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातवर बां धकामाच्या Á मार्णात
अदिवभक्त दिहस्सा (undivided share) वदिहवाटीचा हक्क यावा. त्यामु ळे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात
स र शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात दिन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातर्णयान निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातुसार अज ार सं स्थे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात स प्लॉटवरील बां धकामाचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात Á मार्णातील
k 5/7 38 wpl 8893.23 os.doc
सामाईक आर.जी व अं तगत रस्त्यांचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात अदिवभादिजत हक्कांचे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात अदिभहस्तांतरर्ण
दिमळण्याचा हक्क आहे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात . यावरुन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात Á दितवा Ø. १ यांन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्याती Á स्तु त अजाच्या
अन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातुषंगान निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्याते शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात उपदिस्थत के शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यातले शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात ल्या आक्षे शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात पांमध्ये शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात कोर्णतीही गु र्णवत्ता दि सून निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात ये शासन निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्यात त
न निर्णयामध्ये असे स्पष्टपणे नमुद करण्याताही."
7 True it is that in Kashish Park Realty Pvt. Ltd (supra), Single Judge
of this Court has taken a view that the Competent Authority is not vested
with jurisdiction to entertain the application for review. In that case, this
Court arrived at the conclusion that corrigendum issued by the
Competent Authority materially and substantially varied the earlier
order. It also appears that while issuing the corrigendum, the affected
parties were not heard by the Competent Authority. It is in the light of
these peculiar facts that this Court held that issuance of corrigendum was
arbitrary exercise of power without jurisdiction. In the present case
exercise of power to issue corrigendum far from being arbitrary exercise
of power, actually subserves the objective behind the Government
Resolution dated 22 June 2018. It is also required to be borne in my mind
that the Petitioner is divested of title and possession of the entire plot of
land in respect of which the layout is sanctioned. The development in the
layout is complete wherein 7 buildings are constructed and 7 Co-
operative Housing Societies are formed. There is no dispute interse
between the 7 Co-operative Societies. In fact it appears that the other Co-
operative Societies have also filed applications claiming proportionate
share in the internal road and recreational ground. In that view of the
matter it is difficult to comprehend as to how the rights of the Petitioner
are affected if all 7 Societies share the internal road and
k 6/7 38 wpl 8893.23 os.doc
recreational ground in proportionate to the areas of their respective
plots. I am therefore of the view that the action of the Competent
Authority in issuing the corrigendum, far from being arbitrary, actually
brings the original order dated 2 July 2014 in tune with the GR dated 22
June 2018.
8 The next objection of the Petitioner is about the undertaking
submitted by him with the MCGM. Mr. Khandeparkar has placed on
record, copy of the undertaking dated 11 September 1997 filed by the
Petitioner with the Municipal Corporation while seeking the
development permission. The said Undertaking reads thus:
"1) That I shall not claim advantage of 9.15 m wide internal
layout road in F.P. No.502 TPS No.III Borivli (West).
2) That I shall not change property Register card for layout
recreation Ground of F.P. No.502 bearing C.T.S. No.389/14 of the
village Eksar for internal access Road passing through R.G. in
future."
9 From the undertaking so given by the Petitioner it is clear that no
promise is made for making internal road available for any other
neighboring land occupier as sought to be suggested by the learned
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, the
Undertaking given by the Petitioner cannot come in the way of the 7
Societies owning proportionate share in the recreational ground and
internal roads.
k 7/7 38 wpl 8893.23 os.doc
10 The last ground of challenge of the Petitioner is about failure on the
part of the Competent Authority to decide the application of the
Respondent No.2 for amendment. I have perused the application for
amendment filed by the Respondent No.2 Society. By that application
Respondent No.2 Society desired to implead Respondent Nos.1A to 1F
Societies. As observed above, there are no disputes interse between the
Respondent No.2 Society and the other Societies in the layout. In
Mr. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 7
Societies has submitted that even those Societies are desirous of getting
undivided and proportionate share in the internal road, and recreational
ground. It is therefore difficult to comprehend as to what prejudice is
caused to the Petitioner if the other Societies are not heard before
passing the order dated 20 December 2022.
11 After considering the overall conspectus of the case, I do not find
any valid ground to interfere in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is
accordingly dismissed.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
