[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Akashdeep Cooperative Housing Society ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 24 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:13855
wp-15878-2022.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHABNOOR
AYUB WRIT PETITION NO.15878 OF 2022
PATHAN
Digitally signed
Akshadeep Cooperative Housing
by SHABNOOR
AYUB PATHAN Society Lt d., A Cooperative Society duly
Date: 2026.03.24 registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative
11:48:42 +0530
Societies Act, 19960 bearing Registration
No.BOM/WN/HSG/TC/8518/2000-2001/
Yr. 2000 with its registered office at Building
No, 8-A/B, Damodar Park, LBS Marg,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - 400 086,
and duly represented by Paritosh Kumar,
Authorised Representative/Secretary,
Age: 43 years, Occupation: Service,
having address at Building No., 8-A/B,
Damodar Park, LBS Marg,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - 400 086. ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Government Pleader,
P. W. D. Building, High Court, Mumbai
Through the City Survey Office,
Ghatkopar Division, Topiwala College,
Sarojni Naidu Marg
Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400 080
2. The District Deputy Registrar - II,
Cooperative Societies, Suburban,
Kokan Bhavan, Belapur, Navi Mumbai
3. The Poddar Mills Ltd.,
B - 10, Nav Shilpwani Society,
Lalubhai Park Road,
Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056.
4. Parul Enterprises,
312, Maker Bhavan No.3, New Marine
Lines, Mumbai - 400 020.
1
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:46:24 :::
wp-15878-2022.doc
5. Solery Land Development Pvt. Ltd.
608, Maker Chambers - V, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 020.
6. Rockline Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors., A private limited company
incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956, having its office
at G-1, Block No.8, Beach Apartment,
Near Novatal Holiday Inn, Dr. A. D. Nair
Road, Juhu, Vile Parle, Mumbai - 400 049. ... Respondents
Mr. Mandav Soman with Mr. Rajkumar K. Shukla with
Ms. Saraswati Rapurohit, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP, for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-
State
Mr. Ranjit Thorat, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Prashant A.
Nakati, for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 9, 2026
RESERVED ON : MARCH 24, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present Petition instituted under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner calls in question the legality
and correctness of the Impugned Order dated 15 June 2020 passed
by Respondent No. 2. By the said order, Respondent No. 2 has
rejected the Application for Deemed Conveyance preferred by the
Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the rejection proceeds on
grounds which are wholly erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is
contended that the authority has failed to correctly appreciate the
material placed on record and has adopted a view which is
wp-15878-2022.doc
contrary to the statutory scheme governing deemed conveyance
under the relevant enactment.
2. The factual background giving rise to the present Petition
may now be briefly stated. The Petitioner is Akashdeep Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd., a co-operative housing society
formed by the purchasers of flats in the building known as
"Akashdeep Society." The society has been constituted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Maharashtra
Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction,
Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. The Petitioner Society
is also duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960, bearing Registration No.
BOM/WN/HSG/TC/8518/2000-2001 dated 2 May 2000. The
registered office of the Petitioner Society is situated at A-8A / 8B,
Damodar Park, L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - 400086.
Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent Nos. 2
to 6 are parties who were concerned with the proceedings arising
out of the Petitioner's Application for Deemed Conveyance bearing
Application No. DC/105516/2019.
3. The record further indicates that on 31 October 1979 the
original owners of the property, namely Poddar Mills, granted and
assigned development rights in favour of M/s. Parul Enterprise for
the purpose of construction of eight buildings, namely Building
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 13 on the larger parcel of land. At the
same time, the owners executed a Power of Attorney in favour of
Shri C. D. Shah and another person authorising them to act in
relation to the development of the property. Thereafter, on 15
wp-15878-2022.doc
January 1980, by two separate agreements, Poddar Mills further
conferred development rights upon M/s. Parul Enterprise for the
construction of additional buildings bearing Nos. 4, 7, 9, 11 and
12. These buildings were proposed to be constructed on another
portion of the balance land as well as on a portion of the property
which was then occupied by hutment dwellers. The Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai had earlier granted municipal
sanction vide Sanction No. CE/169/BSIII/LONS dated 28 July
1979. The said sanction contemplated construction of thirteen
buildings on the larger property. The building in which the
members of the Petitioner Society have purchased flats was
sanctioned under IOD No. CE/2536/BPES/AN & CC dated 26 May
1979. Subsequently, on 20 December 1994, the owners agreed to
transfer and convey a portion of the larger property which was
occupied by hutment dwellers to Solaris Land Development Pvt.
Ltd. Thereafter, an Indenture of Conveyance dated 10 May 2009
came to be executed between Solaris Land Development Pvt. Ltd.
and Respondent No. 6. Prior to the said conveyance, M/s. Parul
Enterprise, who were the developers, had assigned development
rights in favour of Respondent No. 6 by executing an Assignment
of Development Rights dated 13 March 2007 in respect of the slum
area described therein.
4. Since the promoters and the original owners failed to
execute the conveyance of the land and building in favour of the
Petitioner Society within the period contemplated under law, the
Petitioner Society was constrained to invoke the statutory remedy
provided under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats
wp-15878-2022.doc
(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management
and Transfer) Act, 1963. Accordingly, on 26 November 2018 the
Petitioner Society filed an Application seeking grant of Deemed
Conveyance in respect of the land upon which the building of the
Petitioner Society stands constructed. The said application came to
be registered as Application No. DC/105516/2019. Upon
consideration of the material placed before it, Respondent No. 2 by
an Order dated 11 March 2019 allowed the Application for
Deemed Conveyance filed by the Petitioner Society. Consequent
upon the said order, the process of Deemed Conveyance was
completed on 27 September 2019. Respondent No. 6, being
aggrieved by the said order granting Deemed Conveyance,
instituted Writ Petition No. 12838 of 2019 before this Court. By an
Order dated 18 December 2019, this Court allowed the said writ
petition and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 2 for a fresh
hearing and decision in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order
of remand, Respondent No. 2 reheard the parties. However, after
such rehearing, Respondent No. 2 passed the Impugned Order
dated 15 June 2020 rejecting the Application for Deemed
Conveyance filed by the Petitioner Society. The Petitioner contends
that the authority has failed to properly consider the material
available on record and has adopted an approach contrary to the
governing legal principles. Being aggrieved by the said Impugned
Order dated 15 June 2020, the Petitioner has therefore
approached this Court by filing the present Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
wp-15878-2022.doc
5. Mr. Soman, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner Society, namely Akashdeep
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., has been constituted by the
purchasers of flats in the building known as "Akashdeep Society."
The said Society has been formed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats
(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management
and Transfer) Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the Society
stands duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 bearing Registration No.
BOM/WN/HSG/TC/8518/2000-2001 dated 2 May 2000. The
Society is registered under the name and style of Akashdeep Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the said
Society." The registered office as well as the building of the said
Society are situated at A-8A / 8B, Damodar Park, L.B.S. Marg,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - 400086.
6. It is further submitted that the Applicant Society is in
possession of the plot of land bearing C.T.S. No. 150 (Part) and
C.T.S. No. 151B (Part) of Village Ghatkopar, as well as C.T.S. Nos.
2268 (Part), 2269 (Part) and 2270 (Part) of Village Kirol, Taluka
Kurla, District Mumbai Suburban, all situated at L.B.S. Marg,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai. According to the Petitioner, the
respective areas of the said lands are 334.43 sq. mtrs., 4417.36 sq.
mtrs., 75.70 sq. mtrs., 31.79 sq. mtrs. and 1572.02 sq. mtrs.,
aggregating to a total area of 6431.30 sq. mtrs., as reflected in the
approved plans issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai. The said property together with the building standing
wp-15878-2022.doc
thereon is hereinafter referred to as "the Suit Premises." It is
further submitted that the building of the Applicant Society
consists of two wings, namely Wing A and Wing B, comprising in
all 82 units, including 49 flats in Wing A, 32 flats in Wing B and
one community hall belonging to the Society.
7. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner further submits that in
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Applicant
Society is entitled to seek issuance of a certificate by the
Competent Authority declaring that the Society is entitled to
obtain unilateral Deemed Conveyance in respect of the Suit
Premises under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats
(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management
and Transfer) Act, 1963. It is therefore submitted that the
Competent Authority ought to issue a Certificate of Entitlement for
Unilateral Conveyance in favour of the Applicant Society in respect
of the land together with the building standing thereon situated at
A-8A / 8B, Damodar Park, L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai
- 400086.
8. The total area of the property claimed by the Applicant
Society, C.T.S.-wise, is stated as under:
Surve C.T.S. No. Area Conveyed
y No.
-- 150 (Pl.) (C.S.O. Ghatkopar) 334.43 sq. mtrs.
-- 151 B (Pl.) (C.S.O. Ghatkopar) 4417.35 sq. mtrs.
-- 2268 (Pl.) (C. S. O. Ghatkopar, 75.70 sq. mtrs.
Kirol)
-- 2269 (Pl.) (C. S. O. Ghatkopar, 31.79 sq. mtrs.
Kirol)
wp-15878-2022.doc
27 of 2270 (Pl.) (C. S. O. Ghatkopar, 1572.02 sq. mtrs.
Ghatk Kirol)
opar
Total Area 6431.30 sq. mtrs.
9. The Competent Authority, upon consideration of the facts
and documents produced during the course of the proceedings,
recorded that the Applicant is a Co-operative Housing Society
known as Akashdeep Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., duly
registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
and the Rules framed thereunder, bearing Registration No.
BOM/WN/HSG/TC/8518/2000-2001. The Competent Authority
further noted that the registered address of the Applicant Society is
at A-8A / 8B, Damodar Park, L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai - 400086.
10. It was further observed that the Applicant Society had filed
an Application for Deemed Conveyance in Form VII on 26
November 2018 and thereafter submitted a modified Form VII on
13 February 2019 before the Competent Authority. As per the said
Application in Form VII, the Society claimed ownership of the
building together with the land admeasuring 6431.30 sq. meters,
as specifically described in the approved plans of the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The said description of the
property was also reflected in the remarks under Reference No.
CE/2536/BSIII/A/N dated 17 May 1975, together with the
buildings standing thereon situated at Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai
- 400086. The area claimed by the Applicant Society and the
description of the property in the said Application were stated to
wp-15878-2022.doc
be duly supported and corroborated by the approved plans issued
by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai which were
produced along with the Application for Deemed Conveyance.
11. Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 6, submits that the building of the Applicant or
Petitioner Society is actually situated on the properties bearing
C.T.S. No. 2270 of Village Kirol, Taluka Kurla, C.T.S. No. 2268 of
Village Kirol, C.T.S. No. 2269 of Village Kirol and C.T.S. No. 150
(Part) of Village Ghatkopar, and not on C.T.S. Nos. 151B and 151C
as alleged by the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the area in
question had already been declared as a slum area by the
competent authority prior to the issuance of any sanctioned plan
by the planning authority. According to Respondent No. 6, the
attempt made by the Petitioner Society to connect the said
properties with C.T.S. Nos. 151B and 151C is wholly incorrect and
contrary to the official records. The correct particulars of the
properties, according to Respondent No. 6, are stated as under:
Sr. CTS No. Village Area (Sq. Mtrs.)
No.
1 2270 Kirol 4056.70
2 2268 Kirol 97.10
3 2269 Kirol 64.50
4 150 (Part) Ghatkopar 2213.005
Total Area 6431.30 Sq. Mtrs
12. It is further submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 6 that
the aforesaid total area of 6431.30 sq. mtrs. is clearly reflected in
the official maps and revenue records. However, according to
wp-15878-2022.doc
Respondent No. 6, without undertaking a proper survey and
demarcation of the aforesaid C.T.S. numbers, the Petitioner Society
is attempting to unlawfully encroach upon and claim property
which is legally owned and developed by Respondent No. 6. It is
contended that the official records, including the Slum Declaration
Gazette Notification, the Development Plan remarks and the
Property Register Card pertaining to the said property, clearly
establish the correct factual position. On the basis of the aforesaid
material, Respondent No. 6 submits that the present Petition is
misconceived, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed with
costs.
13. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent
No. 6 further submits that upon completion of the sale component
of the project, and after due inspection and verification by the
competent authority regarding compliance with the applicable
conditions, Occupation Certificates in respect of the sale buildings
comprising Wings A to C have been duly issued. It is submitted
that the construction of the sale component has been completed in
accordance with the sanctioned plans and the permissions granted
by the competent authorities, and Respondent No. 6 has complied
with all statutory requirements in respect of the said sale
buildings.
14. It is further submitted that the rehabilitation buildings
constructed under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme have already
been handed over to the eligible slum dwellers and beneficiaries in
accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the
approved scheme. The beneficiaries are presently in lawful
wp-15878-2022.doc
possession and occupation of their respective rehabilitation
tenements. According to Respondent No. 6, the rehabilitation
component of the project has been substantially implemented in
compliance with the Letter of Intent, the sanctioned plans and the
conditions imposed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and other
competent authorities. Respondent No. 6 further submits that it is
presently in the process of completing certain ancillary and
procedural formalities, if any, in relation to the sale component,
including documentation and other statutory compliances as may
be required.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
15. The approved plans issued by the Municipal Corporation
assume considerable importance in the present dispute. They are
official documents prepared and sanctioned by the planning
authority. They show the layout of the entire property, the position
of the buildings, and the extent of the land attached to each
structure. In the present matter, the Petitioner Society relies
heavily on these approved plans to show that its building stands on
a particular portion of the larger property and that the area
claimed by the Society is reflected in those municipal records.
16. On the other hand, Respondent No. 6 places reliance on a
different set of official records. Respondent No. 6 has produced
revenue maps, entries from the Property Register Card and the
Slum Declaration Notification issued by the competent authority.
These documents are also official records maintained by statutory
authorities. They indicate the revenue particulars of the land and
wp-15878-2022.doc
also show the status of the land prior to the redevelopment
activities. In addition to these documents, Respondent No. 6 has
also produced assignment agreements and conveyance deeds
which are relied upon to establish the transfer of development
rights and the title claimed by Respondent No. 6 over certain
portions of the property.
17. Thus, it becomes clear that both sides rely on documentary
material issued by competent authorities. The Society relies mainly
on municipal planning records and the Form VII. Respondent No. 6
relies primarily on revenue records, slum declaration documents
and agreements relating to development rights. When such
competing records are placed before the Court, the duty of the the
Competent Authority is to carefully examine each document,
understand its legal effect and determine which record carries
greater value for deciding the right claimed under Section 11 of
the Flats Act.
18. Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act provides
a statutory remedy to a cooperative housing society where the
promoter or the original owner fails to execute conveyance of the
land and building in favour of the society within the period
prescribed by law. The intention behind this provision is to protect
flat purchasers who have formed a cooperative society but are
deprived of conveyance due to inaction or refusal on the part of
the promoter. In such circumstances, the law empowers the
Competent Authority to grant what is known as deemed
conveyance so that the society can obtain legal title to the
property.
wp-15878-2022.doc
19. For deciding this issues, the Competent Authority must
examine approved municipal plans, survey maps, development
agreements and conveyance deeds are all relevant documents
depending on the nature of the dispute. The Authority must assess
these documents carefully and must arrive at its conclusion by
giving clear reasons.
20. Although the order refers to revenue records and documents
relied upon by Respondent No. 6, it does not clearly explain why
those documents should prevail over the municipal planning
records relied upon by the Society. The order does not demonstrate
a proper comparison between the two sets of documents. For this
reason, the decision appears to have been reached without a
detailed evaluation of the material on record. In my considered
view, such an approach does not satisfy the requirement of a
reasoned decision which the law expects from a statutory authority
exercising quasi judicial powers.
21. Another important aspect of the dispute relates to the CTS
numbers of the property. Both parties broadly agree about the total
area involved in the dispute. However, they disagree on how that
total area is distributed among the different CTS numbers. The
Society claims that certain CTS numbers form part of the property
attached to its building. Respondent No. 6 disputes this claim and
asserts that the building stands on different CTS numbers.
22. Such a dispute is essentially factual in nature. It concerns the
identification and demarcation of the land on the ground.
Questions of this nature require careful examination of revenue
wp-15878-2022.doc
maps, municipal records and other official documents. In some
cases, it may also become necessary to conduct a proper field
survey so that the exact boundaries of the property can be
identified. Only after such verification can a clear conclusion be
reached regarding the CTS numbers which actually form part of
the land attached to the Society's building.
23. Therefore, the Competent Authority ought not to have
rejected the application solely on the ground that there was a
dispute regarding CTS numbers. Instead, the Authority should
have taken steps to reconcile the municipal records and the
revenue records. If required, a survey could have been directed so
that the boundaries of the property could be determined with
certainty.
24. Respondent No. 6 has also relied upon the fact that the
property in question had been declared a slum area and that
rehabilitation work under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme has
already been carried out. If rehabilitation tenements have been
constructed and handed over to eligible beneficiaries, those
persons are now in occupation of the premises allotted to them.
25. However, the existence of rehabilitation buildings does not
automatically extinguish the right of the Society to seek deemed
conveyance for the building in which its members reside. The two
aspects must be examined separately. The Competent Authority
must carefully identify the area which corresponds to the building
of the Society as per the approved municipal plans. The Society's
claim can extend only to that area and to the building standing
wp-15878-2022.doc
upon it. Any portion of land or building which forms part of the
rehabilitation component under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
must remain unaffected by the process of deemed conveyance.
26. Respondent No. 6 has also relied upon occupation
certificates issued for certain sale buildings forming part of the
redevelopment project. An occupation certificate indicates that the
construction of the building has been completed in accordance
with the sanctioned plans and that the building is fit for
occupation. Therefore, such certificates lend support to the claim
of Respondent No. 6 regarding the completion of the sale
component of the project.
27. At the same time, the existence of occupation certificates for
sale buildings does not by itself defeat the statutory right of a
cooperative housing society to obtain conveyance of the land and
building belonging to it. The MOFA Act specifically recognises the
right of a society to obtain conveyance where the promoter has
failed to execute it voluntarily. Therefore, the presence of sale
buildings and the issuance of occupation certificates do not
automatically prevent the grant of deemed conveyance. What is
required is a clear identification of the land and building which
belong to the Society as distinct from the portions forming part of
the sale component of the project.
28. For this reason, it becomes necessary that the Competent
Authority carefully separate the different components of the
project. If required, this separation may be achieved through
proper demarcation of the property on the ground.
wp-15878-2022.doc
29. For all these reasons, it becomes evident that the matter
requires careful reconsideration with proper examination of the
documents and, if necessary, verification of the property
boundaries so that the rights of all parties can be determined on
the basis of reliable evidence.
30. For the reasons given I allow this petition in part. I set aside
the impugned order dated 15 June 2020. I direct that Respondent
No. 2 must reconsider the Petitioner's application in a reasoned
manner. The reconsideration will follow these steps.
a) Respondent No. 2 shall obtain and examine the
original municipal approved plans and the Form VII filed by
the Society. These documents must be compared with the
revenue maps and the PR card entries relied upon by
Respondent No. 6.
b) If any discrepancy exists between municipal plans and
revenue records regarding CTS numbers and boundary lines,
Respondent No. 2 shall direct a limited survey and
demarcation. The survey will be done by a competent
authority agreed by the parties or nominated by Respondent
No. 2. The scope of the survey must be limited to fixing the
boundaries between the Society building, the rehabilitation
tenements and the sale component.
c) Respondent No. 6 shall produce true copies of the
assignment and conveyance documents and the relevant PR
card and Slum Declaration Gazette Notification. These
documents will be placed before the Competent Authority
wp-15878-2022.doc
during the fresh hearing.
d) The Competent Authority will thereafter pass a fresh
reasoned order stating, on the basis of the reconciled records
and the survey if any, whether the Society is entitled to a
Certificate of Entitlement for unilateral deemed conveyance
under Section 11 in respect of the area and units shown in
the approved plans as belonging to the Society.
e) If entitlement is found, the Competent Authority shall
issue the Certificate of Entitlement and give directions to
complete the conveyance formalities and registration.
f) The fresh hearing and decision shall be completed
within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
g) Parties shall appear before competent authority on 30th
March 2026 at 11 am.
h) No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
