[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jeanette Gordan Rodrigues And Ors vs Competent Authority And District Dy ... on 16 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:7903
38-wp-16401-2024.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.16401 OF 2024
SHABNOOR Jeanette Gordan Rodrigues & Ors. ... Petitioners
AYUB V/s.
PATHAN Competent Authority &
Digitally signed District Deputy Registrar,
by SHABNOOR
AYUB PATHAN Cooperative Societies, Thane & Ors. ... Respondents
Date: 2026.02.16
18:31:27 +0530
Mr. R. S. Datar a/w Ms. Dhruti Datar, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Haresh Pawar a/w Ms. Anita B. Phanse, for
Respondent No.2.
Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the State - Respondent
No.1.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present petition impugns the order dated 18 February
2021 passed by the Competent Authority whereby an area
admeasuring 1500 square meters came to be allotted in favour of
Respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioners, being the owners, assail the said order by
relying upon the order of this Court dated 9 July 2019 passed in
Writ Petition No. 3135 of 2018 concerning the same subject matter
and substantially the same parties. In the said proceedings, a
statement was recorded on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that the
society was willing to accept a lesser area, namely 1500 square
38-wp-16401-2024.doc
yards instead of 1500 square meters. According to the petitioners,
despite making such concession before this Court, Respondent No.
2 failed to disclose the same before the Competent Authority. It is
further alleged that the impugned order was passed without
proper service of notice upon the petitioners and therefore suffers
from breach of principles of natural justice.
3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, on the other hand,
submitted that the petitioners were duly notified by public notice.
It was contended that the advocate appearing in the earlier writ
petition had no instructions to make the statement attributed to
Respondent No. 2. Reliance was placed upon paragraphs 2 and 3
of the earlier order to contend that the Competent Authority was
required to adjudicate the claim independently on its own merits
and was therefore competent to determine the entitlement of the
parties. On this basis it was urged that grant of 1500 square meters
was within jurisdiction. It was additionally submitted that
interference is unwarranted in view of the fact that conveyance has
already been registered and corresponding mutation entries have
been effected in the revenue record.
4. After hearing both sides at length, it becomes necessary to
closely look at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the earlier order of this
Court. Those paragraphs show the exact background in which the
matter was sent back to the Competent Authority. In the earlier
proceedings, the Society itself made a statement before this Court,
through its advocate, that it was willing to accept a smaller extent
of land. The Society did not insist upon 1500 square meters. It
agreed to restrict its claim to 1500 square yards. The Court noted
38-wp-16401-2024.doc
that, at that stage, there was no sufficient material on record to
finally decide the entitlement. Because of this, and because
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited, the Court
directed that the dispute should first be examined by the
Competent Authority. The earlier order therefore did not grant any
right to the Society. Instead, it required the Society to prove its
entitlement before the statutory authority and that too in light of
the statement made before the Court.
5. When paragraphs 2 and 3 are read together, their meaning
becomes clear. The Court did not send the matter back in a general
manner. The remand was linked to the statement of the Society
that it was ready to accept only 1500 square yards. That statement
formed the basis of the remand. The Society was therefore
permitted to establish its claim only within the limits of that
concession. The direction was not open ended. The Society could
not thereafter claim a larger area inconsistent with what was
stated before the Court.
6. Paragraph 3 of the earlier order further records that the
Competent Authority shall decide the proposal on its own merits.
This expression cannot be read in isolation. It must be read along
with the recorded statement. The authority had to examine
whether the Society was entitled to 1500 square yards. The
authority was not permitted to reopen the entire question of area
and grant a larger extent. The enquiry was therefore restricted.
The authority had jurisdiction to either grant or refuse 1500
square yards. It had no jurisdiction to grant 1500 square meters
once the Society itself limited its claim before the Court and
38-wp-16401-2024.doc
obtained a remand on that basis.
7. In other words, the real question before the authority was
simple. The authority had to determine whether the Society
proved entitlement to 1500 square yards. Instead, the authority
granted 1500 square meters, which is substantially more than
what the Society agreed to accept. Such exercise travels beyond
the scope of the remand order. An authority acting on remand
cannot enlarge the claim. It must remain within the boundaries
fixed by the Court. Therefore, the submissions advanced on behalf
of Respondent No. 2 cannot be accepted and the impugned order
cannot be sustained.
8. Accordingly, the following order is passed.
(i) The impugned order dated 18 February 2021 and the
consequential sale deed are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The proceedings are remitted to the District Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thane, for determining
only the entitlement to 1500 square yards after granting
hearing to all concerned parties.
(iii) The parties shall appear before the Authority on 26
February 2026 at 11.00 a.m.
(iv) The Competent Authority shall decide the issue of
entitlement within eight weeks from the date of appearance
of the parties.
(v) All contentions of both sides are kept open.
(vi) Both parties are permitted to place additional
38-wp-16401-2024.doc
documents before the Competent Authority.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
