Ramanlal Nathmal Jain And Ors vs Lumbini Co Op Housing Soc Trh Its ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3442 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramanlal Nathmal Jain And Ors vs Lumbini Co Op Housing Soc Trh Its ... on 6 April, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:16239
                                                                                           32-15472-2023.doc


                           Shabnoor
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.15472 OF 2023

                           Ramanlal Nathmal Jain & Ors.                   ... Petitioners
                                      V/s.
             Digitally
             signed by
             SHABNOOR
                           Lumbini Cooperative Housing Society
    SHABNOOR AYUB
    AYUB
    PATHAN
             PATHAN
             Date:
                           Through Its Chairman & Ors.                    ... Respondents
             2026.04.06
             17:36:18
             +0530



                           Mr. Dadhichi S. Mhaispurkar, for the Petitioners.
                           Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat i/b Raj Legal, for Respondent
                           No.1.
                           Mr. H. D. Mulla, AGP, for the State - Respondent No.7
                           and 9.


                                                          CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                          DATED    : APRIL 6, 2026
                           P.C.:

1. The present petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The main argument raised by the petitioner is that this law itself does not apply to the facts of the present case. In simple words, the petitioner is saying that the authority has used a law which, according to them, should not have been used at all. Apart from this, one more issue is raised. It is about the extent of land or area which is said to have been transferred in favour of the respondent housing society. The petitioner says that more area is shown to be conveyed than what is proper. Thus, the dispute has two parts. First is about applicability of law. Second is about correctness of the area in the conveyance.

32-15472-2023.doc

2. The learned advocate for the respondent society has brought on record an important development. A copy of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court is placed for consideration. In that order dated 20 January 2026, the Court has recorded a statement made by the State Government. The statement says that there was earlier some confusion or conflict between two laws. One is the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, which is a State law. The other is the Real Estate Regulation Act, 2016, which is a Central law. According to the State, this conflict is now settled because a new provision, Section 1A, has been inserted in the State law. This submission is important because it directly answers the main ground raised by the petitioner.

3. The Division Bench has further explained how both these laws will now operate. It has clarified that once a project comes under the Real Estate Regulation Act, then the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act will mostly not apply. However, some sections of the State law are still kept alive. These include Sections 5A, 11A, 13B, 13C and 13D, along with provisions dealing with the Competent Authority. It is also clarified that the Competent Authority will continue to exercise powers regarding deemed conveyance. This power is traceable to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Real Estate Regulation Act. Therefore, even though there is a shift towards the Central law, the role of the Competent Authority is not taken away in matters of deemed conveyance.

4. The Division Bench has also taken note of the amendment made in the State law itself, by inserting Section 11A. This

32-15472-2023.doc

provision deals specifically with deemed conveyance. The Court has considered this change to show that both laws are now working in a coordinated manner. It shows that the legislature has tried to remove confusion and to make sure that flat purchasers and housing societies are not left without remedy. Therefore the scheme now is more clear than before.

5. In view of this clear position of law the main argument of the petitioner cannot stand. The question whether there is a conflict between the two laws does not remain open any more. It already stands answered by the statutory amendment and by the interpretation given by the Division Bench. Once this position is accepted, the foundation of the petitioner's challenge on this ground itself goes. Therefore, this Court finds that the principal ground raised in the petition does not survive for consideration.

6. Now coming to the second issue. This relates to the area which is said to have been conveyed to the respondent society. The petitioner argues that excess area is included. This Court finds that such a dispute is factual in nature. It requires examination of documents, measurements, and possibly evidence. It is settled position that such issues cannot be properly decided in writ jurisdiction. This Court has consistently taken a view that when a party is aggrieved by the extent or correctness of conveyance under Section 11 of the Act, the proper remedy is to approach the Civil Court. A civil suit allows both sides to lead evidence and prove their case in detail. Therefore, this Court cannot go into that issue in the present proceedings.

32-15472-2023.doc

7. In these circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained on the first ground at all. That part of the challenge fails. As regards the other grounds, the petitioners are not left without remedy. They can approach the competent Civil Court and raise all their objections there. Hence, to that extent, the petitioners are directed to avail appropriate civil remedy.

8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute regarding the area of conveyance. All contentions of both sides are kept open. The Civil Court shall decide the matter independently, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

9. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)