[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
M/S. Vardhaman Homes Thr. Partner Mr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:8108
8-wp195-2022.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.195 OF 2022
Vardhaman Homes, through partner
Sandesh Laxmichandra Vardhan ... petitioner
ATUL V/s.
GANESH State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... respondents
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.02.17
14:50:10 +0530
Mr. Jayesh Joshi for the petitioner.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2-
State.
Mr. R.S. Datar for respondent No.3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2026
P.C.:
1. The petition challenges the order and certificate of unilateral
deemed conveyance issued by the Competent Authority under
Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, whereby
land admeasuring 4954.60 sq. mtrs. together with the structure
standing thereon has been conveyed in favour of respondent no. 3
society. The case of respondent no. 3 is that it is a duly registered
co operative housing society and the petitioner developer failed to
perform statutory obligations cast under the Act. The society
therefore invoked Section 11. The Competent Authority, after
granting hearing, recorded that the developer disputed area
calculation but did not produce any supporting material. The
society, on the other hand, produced the Architect's Certificate
8-wp195-2022.doc
certifying proportionate conveyance area. On the basis of 7/12
extracts, agreements for sale, sanctioned plans and architect
certification, the authority held the society entitled to unilateral
conveyance of proportionate land admeasuring 4954.60 sq. mtrs.
out of total land admeasuring 87144.82 sq. mtrs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
conveyance deed stood registered in Writ Petition No. 8120 of
2023 without issuing notice under Section 11(5) of the Act.
Reliance is placed upon an interim order of this Court directing
that no further steps be taken pursuant to the impugned order. It is
further urged that respondent no. 3 forms part of a larger layout
under development and under the Flat Purcher Agreement the
conveyance was contemplated only in favour of the federation
after completion of the entire project. According to the petitioner,
the developer retains rights in the entire FSI of the layout and
therefore the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant
deemed conveyance to an individual society.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 supports the
impugned order. It is submitted that the Architect's Certificate
clearly establishes the proportionate land necessary to sustain the
constructed building. The authority examined the sale agreements,
sanctioned plans and other relevant documents before granting
conveyance. It is further contended that any claim of right, title or
interest raised by the developer must be adjudicated in a civil suit
and cannot defeat statutory conveyance under the Act.
8-wp195-2022.doc
4. The submissions have been considered and the record has
been examined.
5. The material shows that statutory obligations under the Act
were not fulfilled by the developer. The society therefore invoked
Section 11 seeking conveyance. The Architect's Certificate placed
on record specifies constructed area and the corresponding land
necessary to sustain the building together with undivided share in
common areas. No counter certificate was produced by the
developer before the authority. Even before this Court, no material
is shown to demonstrate any defect in the certification of area.
6. Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 prescribes
procedure for grant of deemed conveyance in layouts containing
multiple buildings and separate societies even where construction
of some buildings remains incomplete. The resolution directs that
conveyance of the constructed building shall include proportionate
undivided occupancy rights corresponding to ground coverage or
plinth area together with open spaces, amenities and access roads.
It further provides that where TDR is utilized, conveyance must
correspond to plinth and appurtenant area. The resolution
therefore permits grant of proportionate conveyance even prior to
completion of entire layout. The present order follows that
principle.
7. The petitioner relies heavily upon the resolution to dispute
the area conveyed. However, such challenge required production
of technical material or counter certification establishing a
different proportionate entitlement. No such material has been
8-wp195-2022.doc
placed on record.
8. The impugned order indicates adherence to the Government
Resolution and consideration of all relevant documents before
issuance of unilateral conveyance certificate. It is settled law
beginning from Mazda Construction Company v. Sultanabad
Darshan CHS Ltd. 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1266 and clarified in
Shree Chintamani Builders v. State of Maharashtra (2016) SCC
OnLine Bom 9343 that grant of deemed conveyance does not
determine title finally and parties may seek declaration in civil
proceedings. In view of this settled position, supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference. The
petitioner may pursue appropriate civil proceedings for declaration
of its alleged rights.
9. If such suit is instituted, the Civil Court shall decide the same
independently on evidence and without being influenced by
observations of the Competent Authority.
10. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
