Pundalik Tukaram Chowgule And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Office ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1195 Bom

Bombay High Court

Pundalik Tukaram Chowgule And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Office ... on 3 February, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:5550
                                                                                    15-wp-12017-2022.doc


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

                                              WRIT PETITION NO.12017 OF 2022

          Digitally
          signed by
                        Pundalik Tukaram Chowgule & Ors.                ... Petitioners
          SHABNOOR
 SHABNOOR AYUB
 AYUB     PATHAN
                                   V/s.
 PATHAN   Date:
          2026.02.03    State of Maharashtra & Ors.                     ... Respondents
          18:42:19
          +0530




                        Mr. Vishwajeet S Kapse, for the Petitioners.
                        Mr. Hamid D. Mulla, AGP, for the State - Respondent
                        Nos.1 and 2.
                        Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar               with      Shubham
                        Suryawanshi, for Respondent No.3.



                                                       CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                       DATED    : FEBRUARY 3, 2026
                        P.C.:

1. The petitioners assert that they are vested with certain rights under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. It is their contention that the order granting deemed conveyance operates to their prejudice and impinges upon the rights claimed by them in respect of the subject land, which they assert to own pursuant to a declaration under the statute.

2. Upon a careful consideration of the statutory scheme, such a challenge cannot be countenanced in proceedings invoking the

15-wp-12017-2022.doc

writ jurisdiction. Section 11 of MOFA empowers the Competent Authority to grant deemed conveyance in favour of a society or association of flat purchasers where the promoter fails to execute the conveyance within the prescribed time. The power is exercisable against a "promoter" as defined under Section 2(c). The legislative intent is clear. The machinery under Section 11 is designed to enforce the statutory obligation of a promoter to convey title. It is not a forum for adjudicating inter se disputes between rival claimants to title who do not answer the description of a promoter.

3. A person who does not fall within the statutory definition cannot, by invoking writ jurisdiction, convert proceedings under Section 11 into a plenary adjudication of complex questions of ownership. To permit such a course would be to enlarge the scope of the statute beyond its plain language. The Competent Authority is not conferred with jurisdiction to determine competing claims of title between third parties. Its enquiry is summary in nature and confined to ascertaining whether the promoter has failed to discharge the statutory obligation. Any independent right claimed in derogation of or adverse to the conveyance is a matter for a civil forum.

4. The principle stands reinforced by authoritative pronouncements. In Shimmering Heights CHS Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2016, decided on 6 April 2016), this Court underscored that proceedings for deemed conveyance are not intended to adjudicate complicated questions of title. The Division Bench in Zainul Abedin Yusufali

15-wp-12017-2022.doc

Massawawala & Ors. v. Competent Authority, District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies, Mumbai & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028, reiterated that the Competent Authority exercises limited jurisdiction and cannot determine rival ownership claims. Similar reasoning informs the decision in P.R. Enterprises & Anr. v. Competent Authority & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2016, decided on 27 November 2018) , wherein it was held that disputes touching contractual entitlement or proprietary interest must be agitated before the Civil Court.

5. Questions of title often require examination of documentary evidence, consideration of antecedent transactions, and application of settled principles of property law. Such issues demand a full- fledged trial. The writ court does not assume the role of a trial court in matters that necessitate detailed evidence. Nor can the limited statutory forum under Section 11 be transformed into one.

6. In the above backdrop, entertaining the present petition would amount to permitting a collateral attack on the deemed conveyance on grounds that travel beyond the statutory parameters. The petitioners' claim is one of ownership or competing civil right in the land. That claim is neither extinguished nor conclusively determined by the order of deemed conveyance. It remains open to be established in appropriate proceedings.

7. The proper course, therefore, is to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of a civil suit. If such proceedings are instituted, the Civil Court shall examine the rival claims uninfluenced by any

15-wp-12017-2022.doc

observations herein, and adjudicate the matter strictly in accordance with law, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence.

8. The ad-interim order granted earlier by this Court shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today.

9. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

10. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)