[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajani Alias Prabhavati Chittaranjan ... vs Dahisar Siddhi Apartment Chsl And Ors on 6 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:6205
wp977-26-J.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 977 OF 2026
Rajanialias Prabhavati Chittaranjan Patil
Nee Rajani alias Prabhavati Laxman
Thakur, Age: 83, Occ: Housewife
SAYALI R/a Om Yogeshwar Apartment,
DEEPAK
UPASANI 3rd floor, Kandarpada, Near Metro
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI Station, Dahisar (West),
Date: 2026.02.06
12:21:19 +0530
Mumbai - 400068
...Petitioner
V/s.
1. Dahisar Siddhi Apartment CHSL,
Plot No. 1, CTS No. 1732, Prabhat
Nagar, S. V. Road, Dahisar (East),
Mumbai 400068 Through its
Chairman/ Secretary
2. M/s. Unique Construction Co.,
A Partnership Firm, Developers,
having office address at Om
Apartment, Carter Road No. 3,
Borivali (East), Mumbai - 400 066
3. Mr. H. A. Mainkar (old Developer)
Age: Occ: Developer Namrata, Top
Floor, Aare Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai - 400 066
4. Shri Ramchandra Laxman Thakur
since Deceased through his legal heirs
a) Manish Ramchandra Thakur
Age: 48 approx, Occ: Service
1
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:39:38 :::
wp977-26-J.doc
b) Bhavana Patil Nee Bhavana
Ramchandra Thakur
Age: 53 approx, Occ: Housewife
c) Meena Bhagat Nee Meena
Ramchandra Thakur;
Age: 55 approx, Occ: Professional
d) Mrs. Shilpa Milind Patil
Nee Ms. Shilpa Ramchandra Thakur
Age: 49 approx, Occ: Housewife
all having their last known address at
Flat No. 3, Dahisar Siddhi Apartment
CHSL, Plot No. 1, CTS No. 1732,
Parbat Nagar,S. V. Road,Dahisar (East
Mumbai - 400 068
e)Sangeeta Jagdish Patil Nee Sangeeta
Ramchandra Thakur
Age: 59 Approx, Occ: Housewife C-
504, Vitthal Apt, Mithagar Road,
Behind DMart, Kandarpada,
Dahisar (West), Mumbai 400068
... Respondents
5. Shri Gajanan Laxman Thakur
Age: 68, Occ: Retired
Flat No. 10, Dahisar Siddhi Apartment
CHSL, Plot No. 1, CTS No. 1732,
Parbat Nagar, S. V. Road, Dahisar
(East), Mumbai 400 068
6. Shri. Atul Dattaram Patil
Age: 45 approx, Occ: Service
4, Maruti Vadi, Thakur Chawl, Parbat
Nagar, S. V. Road, Dahisar (East),
Mumbai - 400 068
2
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:39:38 :::
wp977-26-J.doc
7. Shri. Tushar Dattaram Patil
Age: 43 approx, Occ: Service 4, Maruti
Vadi, Thakur Chawl, Parbat Nagar, S.
V. Road, Dahisar (East), Mumbai - 400
068
8. Shri. Dattaram Sakharam Patil
since Deceased through his legal heirs
a) Shri. Atul Dattaram Patil
Respondent No. 6 herein
b) Shri. Tushar Dattaram Patil
Respondent No. 7 herein
c) Smt. Savita Pankaj Madhvi
Respondent No. 9 herein
9. Smt. Savita Pankaj Madhvi
Age: 41 approx, Occ: Housewife Flat
No. 1004, Pawanputra CHS Ltd.,
Narali Agarepad, Road No. 18, Near
Rustomji Paramount, Khar (West),
Mumbai 400 052
10.Mr. Kamlakar Ramchandra Patil
since deceased through his legal heirs
a) Mr. Naval Kamlakar Patil
Respondent No. 11 herein
b) Mr. Ganesh Kamlakar Patil
Respondent No. 12 herein
c) Smt. Asha Naresh Mali
Respondent No. 13 herein
d) Mrs. Seema Manoj Patil
Respondent No. 14 herein
3
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:39:38 :::
wp977-26-J.doc
e) Mrs. Rajeshri Vikas Taware
Respondent No. 15 herein
f) Mrs. Nutan Sharad Patil
Respondent No. 16 herein
11.Mr. Naval Kamlakar Patil
Age: 43 approx, Occ: Business
18, Laxman Tower, 18th floor, link
road, Kandarpada, Near Metro
Station, Dahisar (West), Mumbai-
400068
12.Mr. Ganesh Kamlakar Patil
Age: 47 approx, Occ: Business
17, Laxman Tower, 17th floor, Link
road, Kandarpada, Near Metro
Station, Dahisar (West), Mumbai-
400068
13.Smt. Asha Naresh Mali
Age: 50 approx, Occ: Housewife
Tulasi Vihar Bunglow, EksarKolivada
Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400
103
14.Mrs. Seema Manoj Patil
Age: 53 approx, Occ: Housewife
Sada Anand, D. N. Mhatre Road,
Sainath Nagar, Near Eksar, Borivali
(West), Mumbai 400 103
15. Mrs. Rajeshri Vikas Taware
Age: 57 approx, Occ: Housewife
G.I., Ramchandra Niwas, Near
Laxminarayan Mandir, Eksar Road,
Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 091
16. Mrs. Nutan Sharad Patil
Age: 55 approx, Occ: Housewife
2nd Floor, Near Radhakrishna Mandir,
B. P. Cross Road, Bhayander (East),
Thane - 05
17.State of Maharashtra
4
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:39:38 :::
wp977-26-J.doc
Through District Deputy Registrar, Co-
op Sc Mumbai City (4).
Bhandari Co-op Bank, 2nd floor, P.L.
Kale Guruji Marg, Dadar (West),
Mumbai - 40002
18.State of Maharashtra
Through Joint Sub-Registrar of
Assurances Mumbai - 24 erstwhile
known as Borivali - 9, 1st Floor,
MTNL Building, Magathane, Behir
Vasant Marvel Building, Borivali East,
Mumbai - 400066
19.State of Maharashtra
Through City Survey Office, Borivali
Taluka 4th Floor, Administrative
Building, Natakwala Lane, S. V. Road,
Borivali West, Mumbai - 400 092
Mr. Niranjan Mogre, for Petitioner.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for State-Respondent Nos. 17 to 19.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 29, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 6, 2026
JUDGMENT.:
1. The Petitioner one of the legal heirs of the original
landowner, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is
directed against the Deemed Conveyance Order and Certificate
dated 11.05.2022, the Corrigendum Order dated 06.06.2023, the
wp977-26-J.doc
Registered Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Deed dated 19.07.2022,
the Registered Supplementary Agreement dated 10.08.2023, and
the mutation entry effected on 30.11.2023. It is the case of the
Petitioner that these actions were procured by fraud,
misrepresentation, and suppression of material facts. It is further
alleged that the Competent Authority acted without jurisdiction
and in breach of the principles of natural justice. On these
grounds, the Petitioner contends that the impugned actions are
void from inception and result in unlawful deprivation of her
property rights.
2. It is stated that prior to 27.06.1995, Late Laxman Pandurang
Thakur, the predecessor in title of the Petitioner, was the absolute
owner of land bearing Survey No. 239 Hissa No. 1 and Survey No.
182 Hissa No. 10, corresponding to C.T.S. No. 1732. The record
indicates that on 19.02.1982, a Deed of Assignment was
purportedly executed between H.A. Mainkar and Unique
Construction Co., allegedly conferring certain development rights.
An agreement dated 25.04.1984 is stated to have been executed
between Late Laxman Pandurang Thakur and H.A. Mainkar. The
Petitioner disputes both the validity and existence of this
agreement. Respondent No. 1 Society came to be registered on
03.02.1989. Late Laxman Pandurang Thakur expired on
27.06.1995, leaving behind his legal heirs, including the present
Petitioner.
wp977-26-J.doc
3. On 01.04.2021, Respondent No. 1 Society filed Application
No. 101 of 2021 before the District Deputy Registrar seeking
unilateral deemed conveyance. The deceased landowner, Late
Laxman Pandurang Thakur, was shown as a respondent despite his
demise in 1995. Hearing notices dated 12.04.2021 and 22.09.2021
were issued in the name of the deceased. On 12.11.2021, the
authority was informed of his death. However, no formal
substitution of legal heirs was undertaken. On 20.12.2021, a legal
notice was issued only to the developer and not to the landowners
or their heirs. On 26.11.2021, a revised Form VII application was
filed without seeking formal amendment of the original
application.
4. The proceedings were closed for orders. Thereafter, on
18.02.2022, the Society moved an application to reopen and
amend the conveyance application, stating that the addresses of
the legal heirs were incorrectly mentioned. On 04.03.2022, notice
was issued to H.A. Mainkar despite earlier proceedings showing
another person as Opponent No. 2. Objections were filed by one of
the legal heirs in April 2022. On 11.05.2022, the District Deputy
Registrar passed the Deemed Conveyance Order and issued the
Certificate. The Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Deed was
registered on 19.07.2022. A corrigendum in respect of the
property schedule was issued on 16.09.2022, followed by a
Corrigendum Order dated 06.06.2023. A Supplementary
Agreement was executed on 10.08.2023.
wp977-26-J.doc
5. On 30.11.2023, mutation was effected in the Property Card
in favour of Respondent No. 1 Society. The Petitioner states that
she became aware of the redevelopment and the deemed
conveyance only in October 2025, upon which she initiated
appropriate legal steps, leading to the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the
Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 is summary and limited. It
was contended that the Authority cannot travel beyond the MOFA
agreements executed with the flat purchasers. The agreements
pertain to C.T.S. No. 1732/11 admeasuring 1074.60 sq. mtrs.,
whereas the impugned order grants conveyance of C.T.S. No. 1732
admeasuring 835.60 sq. mtrs. It was argued that the Authority
could not grant conveyance of land differing in description or
extent from the contractual documents. It was further submitted
that the Society had admitted that C.T.S. No. 1732/11 stood in the
name of another society. In such circumstances, the Authority
ought not to have proceeded with the application in the face of
discrepancies in identification of the property. It was also
submitted that the Competent Authority erroneously recorded that
there was no dispute regarding title to the land proposed to be
conveyed, despite serious objections on record.
7. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 failed to
produce any document evidencing transfer of development rights
from the original landowner to the first developer. The MOFA
wp977-26-J.doc
agreements are stated to be silent regarding any such transfer. It is
contended that the chain of title was incomplete. Despite
objections raised, the Authority proceeded to grant conveyance,
thereby allegedly validating a defective title. It was further
submitted that the proceedings were vitiated by fraud allegedly
committed by the Society through its Secretary, who is related to
the Petitioner and is a son of the original landowner.
8. Instances of alleged fraud have been enumerated. First, the
application was instituted against a deceased person. Second,
notices were shown as served upon the deceased at the address of
the Society, and service reports were allegedly fabricated. Third,
changes were made in the array of parties through revised Form
VII applications without formal orders on amendment. It is
contended that such procedure is unknown to law and that legal
heirs were impleaded without proper process and with incorrect
addresses. It is further alleged that after closure of proceedings, an
application for reopening and amendment was filed but never
adjudicated. It is also alleged that a forged No Objection
Certificate purportedly bearing the Petitioner's signature was
submitted. The Petitioner disputes the signature and asserts that
she signs only in Marathi. Suppression of existence of an ancestral
chawl and a temple on the property is also alleged. Learned
counsel submitted that the Petitioner was never served with notice
at her correct address at any stage, including during the original
proceedings, the revised application, the corrigendum proceedings,
and at the stage of registration of the conveyance deed under
wp977-26-J.doc
Section 11(5) of MOFA. It is contended that the entire proceedings
were conducted without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of
hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and
rendering the order void.
9. It was argued that once the principal order dated 11.05.2022
is held to be void on account of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and
violation of natural justice, all consequential actions including the
registered deed, corrigendum order, supplementary agreement,
and mutation entry must also fail as being dependent upon the
parent order.
10. The Petitioner asserts that the property in question is
ancestral property originally owned by Late Laxman Pandurang
Thakur, comprising Survey No. 239 Hissa No. 1 and Survey No.
182 Hissa No. 10 corresponding to C.T.S. No. 1732 situated at
Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District. Upon the
demise of Late Laxman Pandurang Thakur on 27.06.1995, the
Petitioner and other legal heirs are stated to have inherited
undivided co-ownership rights in the property. It is further
submitted that the property consists of three structures, namely the
building occupied by Respondent No. 1 Society, the tenanted
structure known as Krishnabai Pandurang Thakur Chawl, and a
Hindu temple constructed by the family. These structures are
asserted to be longstanding and supported by documentary record.
11. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order
and registered deeds convey the entire land admeasuring 835.60
wp977-26-J.doc
sq. mtrs. to Respondent No. 1 without excluding the land beneath
the chawl and temple, thereby affecting her undivided share and
vested proprietary rights.
Reasons and Analysis:
12. I have considered the pleadings, the documents placed on
record, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
the statutory scheme governing deemed conveyance.
13. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the nature of
proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA. The Competent Authority
exercises a limited and summary jurisdiction. Its role is confined to
enforcing the statutory obligation of the promoter to execute
conveyance in favour of the society in terms of the agreements
executed under Section 4. It is not a civil court. It does not
adjudicate complicated questions of ownership or inter se title
disputes. Those questions fall within the domain of the civil court.
14. The petitioner challenges the order of deemed conveyance
primarily on the ground that the Competent Authority has
conveyed land and rights beyond what the flat purchasers were
contractually entitled to receive. It is contended that the property
described in the impugned order includes areas not forming part of
the sanctioned plan, and that ancestral structures and undivided
rights of the legal heirs have been improperly included. The
respondents, on the other hand, submit that the order merely
enforces the statutory obligation of conveyance under Section 11
of MOFA and does not adjudicate title.
wp977-26-J.doc
15. In this context, the law is no longer res integra. The Division
Bench of this Court in Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala and
others versus Competent Authority (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028)
has clearly explained the legal effect of an order passed under
Section 11 of MOFA. The Court held that a deemed conveyance
results only in transfer of such right, title and interest as the
promoter actually possesses. It does not enlarge the promoter's
title. If the promoter or landowner is of the view that the
conveyance order includes a larger extent of land or rights than
what could legally be conveyed, the remedy lies in filing a
substantive civil suit. The civil court has full jurisdiction to
examine title deeds, ascertain the true extent of property, record
oral and documentary evidence, and render findings on
ownership. Importantly, the findings of the Competent Authority
do not bind the civil court. The civil rights of the parties remain
unaffected and open for adjudication.
16. This principle has been consistently followed in subsequent
decisions of this Court, including 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) . In all these cases, the
Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction where the dispute
centred around title, extent of land, development rights or
wp977-26-J.doc
proprietary claims. It was emphasised that writ proceedings are
not meant to resolve such disputes. Questions of ownership and
quantum of land require detailed examination of documents,
factual scrutiny, and sometimes oral evidence. A writ court does
not conduct a trial. It cannot convert its supervisory jurisdiction
into a fact finding exercise.
17. Applying these settled principles to the present case, it is
evident that the petitioner's challenge substantially relates to the
extent of land conveyed, the inclusion of particular structures, the
validity of development rights, and the alleged overreach of the
society. These are not pure questions of jurisdiction. They are
mixed questions of fact and law. They require examination of title
documents, historical transactions, revenue records, sanctioned
plans and possibly expert evidence. Such adjudication cannot be
undertaken in proceedings under Article 227.
18. Even if it is assumed that the impugned order has conveyed
a larger area than what was contractually agreed, the legal
position remains that the petitioner's substantive rights are not
extinguished. The deemed conveyance operates only to the extent
of the promoter's existing interest. If the petitioner establishes
before a civil court that certain portions could not have been
conveyed, appropriate declaratory and consequential relief can be
granted. The civil court will not be constrained by any finding
recorded by the Competent Authority.
wp977-26-J.doc
19. The consistent judicial approach has been to preserve the
hierarchy of remedies. Section 11 proceedings ensure that flat
purchasers are not indefinitely deprived of conveyance. At the
same time, they do not bar a full fledged civil adjudication on title.
Entertaining the present petition and embarking upon an enquiry
into disputed ownership would amount to bypassing the statutory
remedy available before the civil court.
20. The petitioner has urged that the impugned order is vitiated
for breach of principles of natural justice on the ground that he,
being one of the legal representatives of the original owner, was
not properly served and was denied an effective opportunity of
hearing.
21. The legal position governing such a plea is settled by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar
Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706. In paragraphs 29 to 42.5, the Supreme
Court has explained that natural justice is not an inflexible ritual.
It is a means to ensure fairness, not an end in itself. A mere
allegation of violation does not automatically invalidate the action.
The Court must examine whether real prejudice has in fact been
caused. The authority cannot assume absence of prejudice to
justify non compliance. At the same time, the Court, upon
examining the record, can decline to interfere if it finds that no
actual prejudice has occurred. The ultimate test is whether the
party had a fair opportunity to present its case and whether the
result would have been different had a further opportunity,
wp977-26-J.doc
including oral hearing, been granted. The statutory scheme does
not mandate oral hearing in every case.
22. Paragraphs 31, 32 and 42.3 of the said decision further
clarify that where foundational facts are undisputed and no real
prejudice is demonstrated, breach of natural justice will not vitiate
the order. Paragraph 36 specifically holds that the decisive
question is whether the hearing would have made any difference
to the outcome.
23. Applying these principles to the present case, the record
indicates that Opponent No. 3A, one of the legal representatives of
the deceased owner, was granted opportunity of hearing and
participated in the proceedings. The other legal heirs of the
original owner, namely Opponent Nos. 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3N, 3G, 3L,
3K, 3H and 3J, have submitted their no objection to the grant of
deemed conveyance. In that sense, the estate of the deceased
owner stood sufficiently represented before the Competent
Authority. The proceedings were not conducted behind the back of
the estate as a whole.
24. The controversy before the Competent Authority turned on
statutory obligations under MOFA, prolonged non execution of
conveyance for twenty one years, existence of a registered co
operative society, and the extent of proportional conveyance based
on agreements executed under Section 4. These are matters
determined primarily on documentary record. The proceedings
under Section 11(3) are summary in nature and are based on
wp977-26-J.doc
admitted documents such as registered agreements, society
registration certificate, sanctioned plans, built up area details and
correspondence. There was no adversarial factual enquiry
requiring oral evidence or cross examination.
25. The petitioner has not demonstrated what additional
material could have been placed on record had an oral hearing
been granted. There is no indication as to how the statutory
analysis would have changed. The plea of prejudice rests solely on
the assertion that proper service was not effected upon him. Such
assertion, without showing tangible impact on the decision, does
not satisfy the test of real prejudice laid down in Sudhir Kumar
Singh.
26. Paragraphs 42.4 and 42.5 of the said judgment make it clear
that prejudice must be real and not speculative. In the present
case, even assuming some procedural irregularity in service, the
estate was represented, objections were heard through one of the
legal representatives, and several heirs gave their consent. The
petitioner has not established that absence of personal oral hearing
altered the outcome or deprived him of placing any material fact.
27. In view of the statutory framework, the documentary nature
of the proceedings under Section 11(3), and the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court, the plea of breach of natural justice
cannot be accepted. No real prejudice has been demonstrated. The
impugned order, therefore, cannot be set aside on this ground.
28. In these circumstances, the proper course for the petitioner is
wp977-26-J.doc
to institute a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition if so
advised, cancellation or rectification of the conveyance, and any
other appropriate relief. All contentions on facts and law can be
urged in such proceedings. The civil court shall decide the matter
independently, without being influenced by the observations of the
Competent Authority.
29. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is
relegated to avail remedies by way of civil suit before the
competent civil court.
30. All questions are kept open.
31. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
