IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the effective date of a registered document relates back to the time of execution, as interpreted under Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908.

JUDGMENT :

GS Patel, J.

1. We believe the matter is fully covered by our recent decision in Prabhat Sadan Properties Private Limited v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1764.

2. Mr Deshmukh on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) believes there are points of distinction. We will therefore address the facts to the extent necessary.

3. We are concerned here with a leasehold Plot No 62 of the Dadar Matunga Estate (South). It is of 1015.88 sq mts. There is or was a building on the plot called “Dattashram” and a society by the same name.

4. The original lessee was one Shekhar Moreshwar Kirtikar. He had a registered Indenture of Lease of 23rd August 1950.

5. On 23rd August 1971, Kirtikar entered into a Deed of Assignment with Shanoor Begum Gulam Mohiddin Alias Papamiya, Kulsum Abdul Latis Shaikh and Khairunnisa Allabux Shaikh in respect of the entirety of this lease.

6. On 17th April 1980, Shanoor Begum and others assigned this property to Troika Construction Company (“Troika”), now joined as the 2nd Petitioner.

7. On 29th April 1981, Shanoor Begum and others executed a formal Deed of Assignment of this property with Troika. The document in question was presented for registration on 29th April 1981. This is the area of controversy, because actual registration happened only much later, on 20th September 2011.

8. On 29th April 1981, Shanoor Begum and others wrote to the MCGM requesting that the transfer of their leasehold interest in the property to Troika be recorded. A copy of this letter is at page 200 the Petitioners say that they obtained it in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act”). Strangely, Mr Deshmukh has instructions to state that the MCGM today only knows of this document from the Petition and the RTI response. We are unprepared to accept such a submission, because it amounts to saying that the Public Information Officer has access to some MCGM records that the MCGM officers do not.

9. Troika took up development. It constructed a building of 21 floors. On 11th September 1987, the 3rd Petitioner society, the Dattashram CHSL, came to be registered.

10. On 20th September 2011, the Deed of Assignment between Shanoor Begum and others and Troika came to be finally registered.

11. On 21st November 2012, there was a registered tripartite Development Agreement between the 3rd Petitioner society, the 2nd Petitioner Troika, and the 1st Petitioner Kesar Corporation. Kesar Corporation was appointed as the developer for the whole property.

12. In 2012, there came the State Government amendment to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“MCGM Act”). This resulted in the insertion of Section 92(dddd), made retrospectively applicable from 22nd June 1993.

13. That Section came up for consideration before this Court in Homi Villa CHSL v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 8873.W. We considered this in our judgment in Prabhat Sadan and will therefore refer to it at the appropriate place.

14. To return to the factual narrative, on 17th April 2015, the MCGM raised a demand notice for Rs 1,01,53,434/- and claimed that this was pursuant to directions of this Court in various Writ Petitions that had challenged the vires of Section 92(dddd).

15. On 5th June 2015, Kesar Corporation made payment on a without prejudice basis though in the name of Shanoor Begum. Kesar Corporation received an Intimation of Disapproval (“IoD”) on 19th December 2015.

16. The Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) against the High Court judgment in Homi Villa failed on 16th September 2016.

17. On 6th January 2017, Kesar Corporation received a Commencement Certificate (“CC”).

18. Two years went past. On 21st January 2019, Kesar Corporation wrote to MCGM asking for a refund of the amount that was paid without prejudice as transfer fees. Kesar Corporation claimed that the Transfer Deed was executed in 1981 and therefore Section 92(dddd) could not apply to that transfer. It