M/S. Arihant Developers vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1135 Bom

Bombay High Court

M/S. Arihant Developers vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 February, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:5173
                                                                                       1-wp-1989-2022.doc


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

                                               WRIT PETITION NO.1989 OF 2022
SHABNOOR
AYUB                    M/s. Arihant Developers                        ... Petitioner
PATHAN
 Digitally signed by
 SHABNOOR AYUB
                                   V/s.
 PATHAN
 Date: 2026.02.02
                        The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                ... Respondents
 15:49:27 +0530




                        Mr. Vikram Chavan a/w Sejal i/b M/s. C K Legal, for
                        the Petitioner.
                        Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP, for the State - Respondent
                        Nos. 1 & 2.
                        Mr. Tukaram Shendge i/b Amit Sale, for Respondent
                        No.3.



                                                        CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                        DATED    : FEBRUARY 2, 2026
                        P.C.:

1. The challenge in the present petition arises out of an order passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 ("MOFA").

2. The petitioner-developer has challenged the impugned order by placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018. According to the petitioner, since construction of the entire project is still pending, deemed conveyance in respect of a specific portion of the project could not have been granted.

1-wp-1989-2022.doc

3. Moreover, a civil suit between the parties in relation to sanctioned plan and the pending construction is already pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala and others versus Competent Authority (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028) has explained the nature and effect of an order under Section 11 of the MOFA Act. The Court has held that such an order results in conveyance of only those rights which the promoter actually holds in the land and building. If the promoter considers that the order conveys a larger extent of land or rights than what the purchasers are entitled to, the proper course is to institute a civil suit. The civil court will have full jurisdiction to examine the title documents, evidence regarding extent of land, and all connected issues. The findings recorded by the Competent Authority under Section 11 will not bind the civil court. Thus, the civil rights of the promoter remain intact. They can seek full adjudication before the competent civil court without any prejudice arising from the deemed conveyance order.

5. This approach has been consistently followed by this Court in several decisions. In Shimmering Heights CHSL and others versus State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2016 decided on 6 April 2016), in P.R. Enterprises and others versus Competent Authority (Writ Petition No. 11251 of 2016 decided on 27 November 2018), and in Mehboob Ali Humza and others versus District Sub Registrar (3), Mumbai and others (Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2016 decided on 24 June 2016) , the Court has reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not intended for resolution of disputes

1-wp-1989-2022.doc

concerning title, extent of land, development rights, or ownership claims. Such matters demand appreciation of documentary evidence, oral testimony, and factual determination. Only a civil court is equipped to undertake such an exercise. The writ court does not conduct a mini trial. Therefore, promoters or landowners who dispute the quantum of land or nature of rights conveyed must seek their remedies through a civil suit.

6. It must also be noted that the Competent Authority exercising powers under Section 11 of the MOFA Act has a limited mandate. The Authority examines the registered agreements, sanctioned plans, and related records. It ensures that the conveyance is executed in accordance with the statutory scheme. It does not adjudicate upon complex disputes concerning title. It does not decide whether the society has claimed more land than what it can legitimately claim. It does not settle ownership disputes between rival claimants. These questions fall within the domain of the civil court. Hence, if the petitioners believe that respondent No. 3 has claimed more land than what it is entitled to, the appropriate remedy is to institute civil proceedings rather than invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

7. For these reasons, this Court has consistently exercised restraint in interfering with deemed conveyance orders at the instance of promoters or landowners. Once it is clarified that the observations and findings recorded in the deemed conveyance order do not operate as res judicata in future civil proceedings, there is no legal prejudice caused to the promoters or landowners. Their rights under civil law remain fully intact. They retain the

1-wp-1989-2022.doc

liberty to challenge the society's claim before the civil court. Their remedies remain unaffected.

8. Hence, all contentions raised by the parties regarding the validity of the impugned order, subject to the decision of Special Civil Suit No. 1316 of 2021 or independent suit if petitioner intends so, are kept open to be agitated in the said suit.

9. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

10. There shall no order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)