ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The Petitioners being owners of the suit property have challenged order and deemed conveyance certificate dated 18.11.2013 passed by Respondent No.2, granting deemed conveyance of the suit property in favour of Respondent No.3 Society and subsequently also challenged unilateral registration of conveyance dated 18.07.2014.

3. The case and submissions of the Petitioners are as under:

The Petitioners are the owners of the plot of land bearing plot no. 60, Survey no. 1000 (part) having CTS No. 1188 and 1188/1 to 1188/20 admeasuring about 1672.80 sq. mtrs or thereabout situated at junction of J.N. Road and Zaver Road, Mulund West, Mumbai 400080 (for short, “the suit property”).

4. There are two buildings namely Shrinivas Building A and Shrinivas Building B already exist on the suit property. On 17.1.2001, the Petitioners allowed Respondent No.4 to develop the balance part of the suit property.

5. In 2002, Respondent No.4 developer applied to Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for necessary permissions for construction of building on the balance part of the plot out of suit property, leaving Shrinivas Building A and B untouched and with plinth area of 227.87 sq. mtrs. Respondent No.4 made tripartite registered agreements with various flat purchasers. The agreement stipulates that:

(g) The said Lalji Chauhan constructed two buildings on suit property and let out tenements therein to the occupants on monthly tenancy basis as per IOD;

(h) The recital clause also provides that the two buildings on suit property is assessed to MCGM and all the tenants in the said buildings A and B were existing since 1961 and 1966 respectively.

(i) The recital further provides that Respondent No.4 is permitted to `further develop' said property by consuming balance FSI and erecting `new building' on a portion of the suit property

(j) The recital provides that since property is having built up areas, the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 is not applicable to suit property;

(k) The recital further provides that the flats in new building shall be sold on ownership basis whereas occupants in the Shrinivas Buildings A and B are on tenanted basis;

(l) The new building was proposed to name as “Ganesh Krupa” keeping name of earlier building as Shrinivas building.

6. Respondent No.3 made an application before Respondent No.2 authority under Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 (for short, “MOFA”) in June, 2013. Respondent No.3 falsely stated that, it is in possession of entire plot admeasuring 1672.80 sq. mtrs, and the petitioners and respondent No.4 agreed to convey the suit premises with entire building to respondent No.3. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 though hold flats in Ganesh Krupa Building, reside at Shrinivas Building. This fact was well within the knowledge of respondent No.3. No notice for deemed conveyances was ever received by Petitioners. On 18.11.2013, respondent No.2 has granted unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of respondent No.3 (“Society”) of the suit property.

7. Respondent No.3 tried to couple said conveyance with FSI. The TDR part was deliberately ignored by Respondent No.3 society. Further, as per sanction plan area of 162.83 sq. mtrs is set back area, which cannot be conveyed. In June, 2014, Petitioner No.1 gained knowledge of said proceeding and order from one of the flat purchaser in casual discussion. Hence, the present petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Society supported the order/action in all respects. He relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Bombay High Court Judgment dated 23.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 9116 of 2013 Farhat Coop Housing Society Ltd. vs. M/s. Malkani Enterprises and Others and connected matter.

(ii) Bombay High Court Judgment dated 5.2.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1585 of