[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises ... vs Shri Krishna Premises Co-Operative ... on 7 March, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:11298
WP 13181-25.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13181 OF 2025
Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises
Co-operative Society Limited, a society
registered under the provisions of
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 under Registration No.
MUM/WKW/GNL/O2567/2014-15 dated
17/10/2014 having its office at CTA No. 628
to 632, New Link Road, Andheri West,
Mumbai - 400 053. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sri Krishna Premises Co-operative Society
Limited, a Co-operative society registered
under the Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 under Registration No. MUM/WKW/
GNL/0/2484/2013-14 dated 13/05/2013
having address at Plot No. D-6, CTS No.
628, 629, 630, 632 and 633 village
Oshiwara, Taluka Andheri New Link
Road, opp. Laxmi Industrial Estate,
Andheri West, Mumbai - 400 053.
2. Mrs. Sangeeta Ramchand Sadhwani
81-A, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai - 400 005.
3. District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies Mumbai City (3)
Competent Authority, MHADA Building,
Ground Floor, Room No. 69,
Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondents
_____________________ ___ ________
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Ms Vishaki Bhatia, for the Petitioner.
Smt. Savina Crasto, AGP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Amogh Singh i/b Mr. Shadab Khan, for Respondent No.1.
_____________________________________
SAINATH, PA 1/27
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2026 20:30:32 :::
WP 13181-25.DOC
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 15th DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07th MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner takes exception to an order dated
15th May, 2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies and Competent Authority (R-3), issuing
a corrigendum to an order dated 29th November, 2021
passed by the Competent Authority (R-3) granting a
certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance under Section
11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and
Transfer) Act, 1963 ("the MOFA, 1963), and thereby
correcting the area of the land to be conveyed to
Respondent No. 1 from 1508.00 sq. mtrs., out of CTS No.
633 to 4098.81 sq. mtrs., plus proportionate undivided
rights in RG area admeasuring 583.28 sq. mtrs.,
aggregating to 4682.09 sq. mtrs. and FSI advantage of DP
Road admeasuring 24.61 Sq. mtrs., out of the properties
WP 13181-25.DOC
bearing CTS Nos. 628, 629, 630, 631, 632 and 633 of
village Oshiwara, Andheri (West), Mumbai ('the subject
premises').
3. The Respondent No. 2 was the owner of the plot of
constructed a commercial building known as 'Shri Krishna'
on an area admeasuring 1508.00 sq. mtrs., out of the said
plot. The Respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement with
the purchasers to sell the commercial units in the said
building. Eventually, the unit purchasers formed a co-
operative society namely, 'Shri Krishna Premises Co-
operative Society Limited' (R-1).
4. As the Respondent No. 2 committed default in
discharge of her obligations under the MOFA, 1963, the
Respondent No. 1 filed an application, being Application
No. 18/2021, before the Competent Authority (R-3) for
grant of a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance. By
an order dated 29th November, 2021, the Competent
Authority directed the grant of a certificate of unilateral
deemed conveyance under Section 11(3) of the MOFA, 1963
in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - Society in respect of an
WP 13181-25.DOC
area admeasuring 1508.00 sq. mtrs., plot No. D-6 out of
CTS No. 633 in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Pursuant
to the said certificate, an instrument of unilateral deemed
conveyance came to be registered in favour of the
Respondent No. 1. In due course, the name of the
Respondent No. 1 came to be mutated to the property card
of CTS No. 633.
5. In the same layout, the Respondent No. 2 had also
constructed two buildings namely, Kuber and Kartik, apart
from "Shri Krishna". The apartment owners in Kuber and
Kartik formed a co-operative society, namely 'Kuber Kartik
New Link Road Premises Co-operative Society Limited' - the
petitioner.
6. The Respondent No. 1 filed an application being
Application No. 18/2021, purportedly for rectification of
the order granting certificate of unilateral deemed
conveyance dated 29th November, 2021. It was, inter alia,
asserted that, there were various discrepancies in the
original application on which the order of unilateral
deemed conveyance was passed. The property details like
CTS numbers and area were incorrectly mentioned.
WP 13181-25.DOC
Resultantly, an order for deemed conveyance in respect of a
lesser area than the actual area to which the Respondent
No. 1 was entitled to, was passed. Reference was made to
the fact that, the petitioner had applied for the grant of
certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance vide Application
No. 212/2024 for an area admeasuring 10148.92 sq. mtrs.,
though its actual entitlement as per the sanctioned
building plan was 5823.79 sq. mtrs., only. Thus, banking
upon the building plan sanctioned by the Municipal
Corporation, Respondent No. 1 prayed for rectification of
the area. An architect's certificate was annexed to the said
application.
7. The Respondent No. 2 - promoter did not object to
the prayer of the Respondent No.1. The petitioner contested
the application, inter alia, on the ground that, the
Competent Authority had no power to review its own order.
The entitlement of the Respondent No. 1 to the larger area
was also questioned.
8. By the impugned order, the Competent Authority was
persuaded to allow the application observing that, as the
buildings of the two societies form part of the same layout,
WP 13181-25.DOC
the provisions contained in the Government Resolution
dated 22nd June 2018 were attracted. If considered in the
light of the guidelines in the said G.R. and the approved
building plan, it appeared that, the area granted to the
Respondent No. 1 was less than its entitlement. The
Competent Authority was of the view that, in view of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Kashish Park Realty
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 1., the
Competent Authority had the absolute power to rectify the
errors apparent on the face of record, and such
rectification would not amount to review of the original
order. Holding thus, the Competent Authority proceeded to
rectify the certificate so as to enhance the area.
9. It would be contextually relevant to note that,
pursuant to the impugned order, a deed of rectification of
conveyance came to be executed on 31 st July 2025 and the
consequent mutation entry also came to be certified. The
petitioner has thus sought the relief of quashing and
setting aside the impugned order as well as the deed of
rectification of conveyance and the certification of the
mutation entry in respect of the enhanced area.
1 WP(st)/93044/2020 +
WP 13181-25.DOC
10. I have heard Mr. Vishal Kanade, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, and Mr. Amogh Singh, the learned
counsel for the Respondent No. 1, and Ms. Savina Crasto,
the learned AGP for the Respondent - State at some length.
With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties,
I have perused the material on record, especially, the order
granting certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance and
the impugned order.
11. Mr. Kanade the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, the case at hand is a clear case of
transgression of jurisdictional limits by the Competent
Authority. Mr. Kanade would urge, what accentuates the
situation is the fact that a specific objection was raised
and binding precedents were brought to the notice of the
Competent Authority, to the effect that the Competent
Authority has no power to review its own order and, yet,
the Competent Authority proceeded to pass the impugned
order by completely misconstruing the ratio of the decision
of this Court in the case of Kashish Park Realty Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) and wrongly assumed unto itself absolute power to
review the order.
WP 13181-25.DOC
12. Mr. Kanade would urge that, it is well-nigh settled
that, a Court or Authority cannot review its own order
unless the power is specifically conferred. Review
jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an inherent power. In
the absence of specific power, no Court or Authority can
exercise the review jurisdiction, especially that of a
substantive review. Mr. Kanade would submit that, the
issue stands covered by a judgment of this Court in the
case of Shri Shivam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs.
Vileparle Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors2.
13. Mr. Amogh Singh, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 boldly submitted that, there can be no
quarrel with the proposition that, an Authority cannot
exercise the power of review, unless the said power is
statutorily conferred. However, in the facts of the case at
hand, the said principle is not attracted.
14. Amplifying the aforesaid submission, Mr. Singh
would urge that, it is settled by a catena of decisions that
when more than one society form part of one layout, the
certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance is required to
2 WP/9413/2025 dt. 11/11/2025
WP 13181-25.DOC
be granted in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In the
case at hand, when the first order was passed, the
Competent Authority has granted the certificate of
unilateral deemed conveyance on the basis of the area
shown in the property card only, without examining the
sanctioned plan. The Competent Authority was thus within
its rights in correcting the patent error in the order dated
29th November, 2021.
15. Inviting the attention of the Court to the architect's
certificate, Mr. Singh would urge, the impugned order is in
absolute conformity with the settled principle of law and
the guidelines in the GR dated 22th June 2018, in the
matter of grant of certificate of unilateral deemed
conveyance, where more than one society form part of the
same layout. To this end, Mr. Singh placed reliance on the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Veer Tower Co-
operative Society Limited Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies & Ors.3, and Swastik Promoters and
Developers & Ors., Vs. The Competent Authority, District
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Anr4.
3 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 324
4 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 256
WP 13181-25.DOC
16. As a second limb of the submission, Mr. singh would
urge that, the petitioner has not assailed the legality and
validity of the order dated 15th May, 2025 whereby a
certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance was granted in
favour of the petitioner to the extent of 6974.83 sq. mtrs.
and FSI advantage of the DP road admeasuring 24.57 sq.
mtrs., only. The impugned order as well as the said order
granting certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in
favour of the petitioner, form part of one composite
disposition by the Competent Authority. If the petitioner is
not aggrieved by the said order granting the certificate of
unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of the petitioner,
the petitioner cannot have any grievance in respect of the
impugned order.
17. At any rate, Mr. Singh would urge, by the impugned
order, the Competent Authority has ensured substantial
justice. Where substantial justice is achieved, a writ court
need not interfere. To buttress this submission, Mr. Singh
placed reliance on an order passed by this Court in the
case of Jaywant Ramchandra Keni Vs. The Competent
WP 13181-25.DOC
Authority District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies 5,
wherein a challenge to the issue of corrigendum was
repelled by this Court.
18. In the wake of the aforesaid facts, which have been
noted rather elaborately, and the rival submissions
canvassed across the Bar, the pivotal questions that come
to the fore are:
i) Whether the exercise undertaken by the Competent
Authority was in the nature of substantive review or
exercise of inherent jurisdiction to correct a glaring
procedural defect or jurisdictional infirmity?
ii) Whether the Competent Authority was justified in
exercising the power of rectification of the area, if it
partook character of review?
19. There can be no duality of opinion that, the power to
review an order already passed by the judicial tribunal or
quasi-judicial authority is not an inherent power. Review is
a creature of statute. In the absence of a mandate, under
the law which confers jurisdiction on the judicial tribunal
or quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate or determine the
5 WP(L)/8893/2023 dt. 19/01/2024
WP 13181-25.DOC
matter, it is impermissible for the judicial or quasi judicial
authority to review its own order.
20. In the oft-quoted decision in the case of Patel Narshi
Thakershi and Ors. V/s. Shri Pradyumansinghji
Arjunsinghji6, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court
enunciated that it is well settled that the power to review is
not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either
specifically or by necessary implication.
21. Following the aforesaid pronouncement and the
decisions which take the same line, in the case of Naresh
Kumar and Ors. V/s. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)7, the Supreme
Court postulated that the jurisdiction of review can be
derived only from the statute and, thus, any order of
review in the absence of any statutory provision for the
same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.
22. In the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. V/s. Central
Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors.8, in the context
of the contention that the order setting aside the ex-parte
award, in fact, amounts to review, the Supreme Court
6(1971) 3 SCC 844
7(2019) 9 SCC 416
81980 (Supp) SCC 420
WP 13181-25.DOC
clarified that the decision in Patel Narshi Thakershi and
Ors.(supra), is the authority for the proposition that the
power of review is not an inherent power, it must be
conferred either specifically or by necessary implication.
The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses,
namely, (1) the procedural review, which is either inherent
or implied in a court or tribunal to set aside a palpably
erroneous order passed under a mis-apprehension by it,
and (2) a review on merits, when the error sought to be
corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the
record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Parel
Narshi Thakershi (supra), held that no review lies on
merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. When a
review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent
error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex
debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and
such power inheres in every court or tribunal.
23. Adverting to the aforesaid judgment in the case of
Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra) , and other judgments which
take a similar view, in the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta
Union V/s. Management of Birla Cotton and Spinning Mills
WP 13181-25.DOC
and Ors.9, a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court
illuminatingly postulated the distinction between the
substantive review and the procedural review, in the
following words :
"19. Applying these principles it is apparent that where
a Court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction
to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment
or order can be reviewed on merit only if the Court or
the quasi judicial authority is vested with power of
review by express provision or by necessary
implication. The procedural review belongs to a
different category. In such a review, the Court or quasi
judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate
proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits a
procedural illegality which goes to the root of the
matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and
consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a
decision is rendered by the Court or quasi judicial
authority without notice to the opposite party or under
a mistaken impression that the notice had been served
upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up
for hearing and decision on a date other than the date
fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in
which the power of procedural review may be invoked.
In such a case the party seeking review or recall of the
order does not have to substantiate the ground that
the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the
face of the record or any other ground which may
justify a review. He has to establish that the procedure
followed by the Court or the quasi judicial authority
suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the
9(2005) 13 SCC 777
WP 13181-25.DOC
proceeding and invalidated the order made therein,
inasmuch the opposite party concerned was not heard
for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and
decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing
of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of
his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be re-
heard in accordance with law without going into the
merit of the order passed. The order passed is liable to
be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be
erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding
which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or
mistake which went to the root of the matter and
invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays Bank
Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and
others(supra), it was held that once it is established
that the respondents were prevented from appearing at
the hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed that the
matter must be re-heard and decided again."
(emphasis supplied)
24. The aforesaid strict rule of no review sans statutory
mandate admits of one exception, where the judicial or
quasi-judicial authority commits a grave procedural
irregularity which vitiates the order passed by such
authority, then such authority would be justified in
reviewing its own order in exercise of its inherent power,
which partakes the character of procedural review. That
brings to the fore the distinction between substantive
review and procedural review.
WP 13181-25.DOC
25. Incontrovertibly, the Competent Authority is not
empowered to review its own order under the provisions of
MOFA, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder. This
jurisdictional limitation is sought to be overcome by filing
application styled as the application for "issue of
corrigendum" or "rectification of the order" passed by the
Competent Authority. If it is a case of the correction of
clerical and arithmetical mistakes or errors that have crept
in due to an accidental sleep or omission, the power to
rectify such errors or mistakes can be legitimately
conceded to the Competent Authority. Controversy arises
where the Competent Authority, under the guise of
correction or rectification, ventures into the area of
substantive review and modifies its earlier order by delving
into the merits of the matter.
26. In the case at hand, since the Competent Authority
has attempted to draw support and sustenance for the
exercise of rectification of the area, in a substantive
measure, from the decision in the case of Kashish Park
Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it may be apposite to note the
issue that arose for consideration in Kashish Park Realty
WP 13181-25.DOC
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the enunciation of law therein by this
Court.
27. In the case of Kashish Park Reality Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
(supra), this Court after considering the precedents on the
scope of review and the distinction between substantive
review and procedural review, observed that, in the facts of
the case, the question that arose for consideration was
whether, by the impugned Corrigendum, the Competent
Authority has merely corrected a typographical error, or
whether it amounted to review of the earlier order and, if
so, whether such review was permissible ?
28. A learned Single Judge enunciated that, with the
disposal of the application under Section 11(3) of the
MOFA, the Competent Authority had become functus
officio and, not being in seisin of the matter, had no
jurisdiction to review the order, unless vested with powers
of review under the law. In the facts of the said case, it was
found that the Corrigendum was in the nature of a
substantive review and not merely correction of
typographical or clerical errors. Indeed, the learned Single
Judge also adverted to the fact that the order impugned in
WP 13181-25.DOC
the said petition was not passed in violation of the
fundamental principles of natural justice and without
providing an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved
person. However, the ratio of the judgment in the said case
was not limited to the vitiation that crept in on account of
non-observance of the fundamental principles of natural
justice. The observations in paragraph Nos.21 and 22
make this position abundantly clear :
"21. The applications fled by Respondent -Society in other
Petitions proceed on the same basis with variation in the
area covered by the building and the survey numbers of
the land. By the impugned Corrigenda, the Competent
Authority has rectified the certificates and granted
deemed conveyance not only in respect of the buildings
but also in respect of the subject land and had thereby
materially and substantively varied the order dated
22/07/2020. By no stretch of imagination this
substantive and material change can be considered as a
rectification of a clerical or typographical error, which
could be rectified by issuing a Corrigendum.
22. It is also pertinent to note that with disposal of the
Applications under Sub section 3 of Section 11,
Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority had become
functus officio and not being in seisin of the matter, had
no jurisdiction to review the orders, unless vested with
powers of review under the law. Learned counsel for the
parties do not dispute that the statute does not vest the
Competent Authority with powers of review. In the
absence of such statutory powers, Respondent No.2 -
Authority had no jurisdiction to exercise the power of
WP 13181-25.DOC
substantive review. Despite which Respondent No.2 -
Competent Authority entertained and allowed the
applications without notice to the Petitioners and without
providing an opportunity of hearing, which is one of the
fundamental principles of natural justice."
(emphasis supplied)
29. At this juncture, it is necessary to note as to how the
Competent Authority construed the ratio of the judgment
in the case of Kashish Park Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The
observations in Para No. 9(p) of the impugned order read
as under:
"p. While issuing the corrigendum, this authority relied on
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
Writ Petition (St.) No. 93044/2020 (Kashish Park Reality
Private Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and others). In the said
matter the Hon'ble High Court has distinguished between the
power and authority of this Authority to review / rectify the
order. Bare perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court observe that this Authority has absolute power to
rectify the mistake apparent on the face of the records and
such rectification shall under no circumstances can be called
as review of the order."
30. The aforesaid observations of the Competent
Authority leave no manner of doubt that, the judgment in
the case Kashish Park Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was
completely misread and the ratio therein wholly
misconstrued by the Competent Authority. The
observations that the High Court has held that, the
WP 13181-25.DOC
Competent Authority has absolute power to rectify the
mistake apparent on the face of record and such
rectification under no circumstances amounts to review of
the order is diametrically opposite to the ratio in the case
of Kashish Park Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra) . It seems that, the
aforesaid incorrect impression gathered by the Competent
Authority from the judgment in the case of Kashish Park
Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra) vitiated further consideration by
the Competent Authority.
31. At this stage, it may be apposite to note that, the
legal position as expounded in Kashish Park Realty Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) has been reiterated by this Court in the cases
of Prem Villa CHL Vs. Uma Deep CHL10 and Surya
Corporation & Ors. Vs. The Competent Authority & Ors11.
32. In the case of Shri Shivam Co-operative Society
Limited (supra), on which reliance was placed by Mr.
Kanade, this Court after adverting to the aforesaid
decisions, had culled out the principles which govern the
exercise of the power by the Competent Authority in this
branch, as under:
10 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2987
11 2025 (2) Bom CR 780
WP 13181-25.DOC
"The legal position which thus emerges is that, in
the absence of statutory mandate, the Competent
Authority is not empowered to embark upon the
exercise which is in the nature of substantive review.
The exercise of rectification of an earlier order
passed by the Competent Authority can be justified
as a procedural review, only in cases of clerical or
arithmetical mistake or accidental slip or omission
or patent and palpable errors. Grave procedural
illegality which erodes the sanctity of the order, may,
in a given case, justify the procedural review. A case
of fraud, however, would be an exception to the
aforesaid general rule. It is trite, if the order sought
to be reviewed is obtained by fraud, then the
restraint on review would not apply as the order
which is obtained by fraud can be attacked in any
proceeding, including a collateral proceeding as
fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Thus, in the absence
of an egregious fraud or grave procedural illegality
resulting in irretrievable prejudice to the party, like
one that may occasion on account of passing an
order without providing an effective opportunity of
hearing to the aggrieved party, the Competent
Authority is not competent to review its own order by
invoking the principle of procedural review."
33. Re-adverting to the facts of the case, a bare perusal
of the impugned order indicates that, it is but an exercise
of substantive review. The Competent Authority has
observed, inter alia, that the main Application No. 18/2021
WP 13181-25.DOC
was allowed on the basis of the area of land shown in the
MOFA agreement and the property card of CTS No. 633.
However, the perusal of the building plan dated 02 nd
September, 2013 indicates that, the buildings were not
constructed on separate plots as mentioned in the MOFA
agreement but constructed on the layout comprising plots
bearing CTS No. 628 to 633. The Competent Authority
thereafter proceeded to embark upon an exercise of
deducting the area and calculating the area to be conveyed
to Respondent No. 1 and petitioner - Society on the basis of
plinth and appurtenant area in accordance with the
guidelines under the G.R. dated 26th June, 2018. The
entire exercise was in the nature of re-appreciation of the
material and re-evaluation of the entitlement of
Respondent No. 1, on merits. To put it on other words, the
Competent Authority proceeded to have a substantive
review of the matter and there was no element of
procedural review.
34. The endeavor of Mr. Amogh Singh to support the
impugned order by placing reliance on the decisions in the
cases of Veer Tower Co-operative Society (supra) and
Swastik Promoters and Developers (supra), does not merit
WP 13181-25.DOC
countenance. These decisions govern the situation where
the Competent Authority is passing an order of grant of
certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance, in the first
instance. What the Competent Authority is expected to
determine while considering an application for grant of
unilateral deemed conveyance is delineated in those
judgments. These decisions, however, do not confer
authority on the Competent Authority to review its own
order, even if it is assumed that, the Competent Authority
had passed the first order erroneously. As erroneous
decision is required to be corrected by challenging the
same before the appropriate forums where its legality,
propriety and correctness can be tested. Review is not the
device for correcting an erroneous decision.
35. Reliance placed by Mr. Amogh Singh on the judgment
in the case of Jaywant Ramchandra Keni (supra), also does
not advance the cause of the submission on behalf of the
Respondent no. 1. In that case, vide corrigendum the
Competent Authority had merely granted an undivided
right and proportionate share in the recreational ground
and internal road, in addition to the land on which the
building of the society was constructed. In that context, a
WP 13181-25.DOC
learned Single Judge of this Court noted that, there was no
dispute inter se the seven Co-operative Societies, and all
other Co-operative Societies had also filed applications
claiming a proportionate share in the internal road and
recreational ground. The petitioner therein was already
divested of title and possession over the entire land in
respect of which the layout was sanctioned. Thus, the
learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order
passed by the Competent Authority.
36. I am also unable to persuade myself to agree with the
submission of Mr. Singh that, since the impugned order
ensures substantial justice, this Court may not interfere in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. First and foremost,
it is necessary to note that, the impugned order is clearly
in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Competent
Authority. As the impugned order has been passed in
transgression of the jurisdictional limits, the order is
required to be interfered with on the said count alone.
Secondly, the MOFA agreement indicates that, the
Respondent No. 2 had agreed to sell the units constructed
in the building on plot of land admeasuring 1525.43 sq.
mtrs., only out of CTS No. 633. There was no reference to
WP 13181-25.DOC
the other CTS numbers. Thirdly, the submission that the
petitioner had not assailed the order granting a certificate
of unilateral deemed conveyance by an order of even date
in respect of an area admeasuring 6974.83 sq. mtrs., and
FSI advantage of the DP Road admeasuring 24.57 sq.
mtrs., does not infuse legality and validity into an order
passed beyond the jurisdiction. Fourthly, in view of the
settled position in law and re-emphasized by the Supreme
Court in the case of Arun Kumar H Shah HuF Vs. Avon
Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Limited & Ors. 12, the
person aggrieved by an order passed by the Competent
Authority under Section 11(4) of the MOFA, 1963 is always
at liberty to institute a civil suit for establishing his rights.
37. Therefore, if the grievance of the Respondent No. 1 is
that, under the first order it was allotted lesser area than it
is entitled to, the appropriate course for the Respondent
No. 1 was to assail the said order in a writ petition or
institute a suit to establish its rights to a larger area. An
application for rectification which partook the character of
substantive review, was not the remedy.
12 (2025) 7 SCC 249
WP 13181-25.DOC
38. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside. Resultantly, all the
consequent actions also deserve to be quashed and set
aside.
39. Hence, the following order:-
::ORDER::
i] The Writ Petition stands allowed.
ii] The impugned order dated 15 th May,
2025 in Application No. 18/2021 stands
quashed and set aside.
iii] Consequently, the registered deed of
rectification of conveyance dated 31st July
2025 also stands quashed and set aside.
iv] The Respondents are directed to
execute a rectification deed to restore the
area of the land conveyed to the
Respondent No. 1 as per the order and
certificate of unilateral deemed
conveyance, dated 29th November, 2021.
WP 13181-25.DOC
v] Rule made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
At this stage, Mr. Singh learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1, seeks stay to the execution and
operation of this order.
In the light of the view this Court has taken, the oral
application for stay stands rejected.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL
SANKPAL Date:
2026.03.07
18:21:38 +0530
