Bombay High Court
Ajitsinh Shankarrao Bhonsle vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary ... on 16 January, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:2038-DB
39-wp-5121-2022.doc
SA Pathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5121 OF 2022
SHABNOOR
AYUB
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
WITH
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2024.01.16
18:09:32 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10411 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5121 OF 2022
Ajitsinh Shankarrao Bhonsle ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra Through
Secretary Dept. of Revenue & Ors ... Respondents
Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by Mr. Sagar Amrut Rane, for
Petitioner.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP, for Sate/Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Jaydeep Deo, for Respondent No.5.
Ms. Mrinal Shelar, for Respondent Nos.6 and 7.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 16, 2024
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order passed by
the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune City
dated 13 April 2022 thereby issuing corrigendum to its earlier
order dated 8 June 2015 to substitute area of 1537.80 in place of
1325.10 sq. mtrs. to be conferred in favour of respondent
39-wp-5121-2022.doc
No.5/society. On 8 June 2015, the Competent Authority in
exercise of power under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership
of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale,
Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short 'MOFA') issued a
deemed conveyance order restricting to area 1325.10 sq. mtrs. and
constructed portion to the extent area 1481.67 sq. mtrs.
3. Respondent No.5/society challenged the order mainly on the
ground that the calculation in the area conferred in favour of
respondent No.5/society was incorrect.
4. During pendency of such writ petition, respondent
No.5/society filed an application before the Competent Authority
for correction of order to substitute area 1537.34 sq. mtrs. instead
of area 1325.10 sq. mtrs. By the impugned order, the Competent
Authority issued a corrigendum and replaced the area 1537.60 in
place of area 1325.10 sq. mtrs.
5. Learned Advocate for petitioner relying on judgment in the
case of Kashish Park Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 778 submitted that
under the garb of corrigendum, the Competent Authority had
reviewed its own order, which is impermissible in law as the
authority has no power to review.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate for respondent No.5/society
submitted that the substitution of area in the facts of the case will
amount to correction of clerical error in the original order and,
therefore, the Competent Authority within its power to pass
impugned corrigendum.
39-wp-5121-2022.doc
7. Having considered the submissions and considering the
order dated 8 June 2015, I am of the opinion that substitution of
area 1537.80 instead of 1325.10 would amount to review of the
order.
8. On perusal of clause (5) of the submission made on behalf of
the respondent No.5, it appears that respondent No.5/society
prayed for conferment of deemed conveyance to the extent of area
1573.60 sq. mtrs. The Competent Authority while considering the
case on merits relied on sanctioned plan of the Municipal
Corporation and it is held that as per said sanctioned plan,
proportionate area 1325.10 is required to be conveyed in favour of
respondent No.5/society. Whether conferment of area 1325.10 sq.
mtrs. can be legally justified or not needs to be adjudicated in
appropriate proceeding. However, substitution of area of 1537.80
in place of area 1325.10 cannot be termed as clerical or
arithmetical error. Therefore, the issue involved is clearly
elaborated in the case of Kashish Park (Supra).
9. Hence, following order:
i) The impugned corrigendum dated 13 April 2022
annexed to the writ petition at Exhibit - E and all
consequential action including registration of conveyance are
quashed and set aside.
ii) However, this will not preclude the petitioner for
adopting appropriate proceedings permissible in law in
relation to order dated 8 June 2015.
10. In so far as prayer clauses (a) and (b) are concerned.
39-wp-5121-2022.doc
Learned Advocate for the petitioner on instructions do not press
the prayers at this stage. However, he seeks liberty to raise
appropriate challenge or relief if occasion arises. Liberty, as prayed
for, is granted.
11. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.
13. In view of disposal of writ petition, the interim application
stands disposed of being infructuous.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
