The Competent Authority cannot override binding Consent Decrees, and deemed conveyance granted in violation of such decrees is unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

This Writ Petition takes exception to the impugned order and Certificate both dated 04.03.2022 issued by the Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies and Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (for short "MOFA") granting deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent No. 2 - Society. According to Petitioner, deemed conveyance has been granted to the Respondent No. 2 - Society of certain portions of land belonging to the Petitioner in breach of the terms contained in the Consent Decree dated 06.02.2009 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi in S.C. Suit No. 7410 of 1990 pursuant to the terms contained in Consent Terms dated 18.02.2000 which terms were consistently acted upon by both parties namely Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 - Society for more than 22 years.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present Petition are as under:-

2.1. Petitioner is the owner of land bearing CTS No. 1116 of Village Versova, Taluka Andheri situated in Mumbai Suburban District admeasuring 12371 sq. m. originally. A part of this property admeasuring 943. 80 sq. m. was handed over as a setback area leaving the balance area of the larger property as 11427.20 sq. m. Originally, the Almeida and Kenny families were the original owners of the larger property and Petitioner acquired ownership rights and possession from them through diverse Agreements. There is no dispute on these facts.

2.2. In 1980, Petitioner constructed a building with two wings - A and B having 13 floors each on the extreme left side of the larger property and sold the flats and shops contained therein under MOFA on ownership basis to the purchasers. These purchasers formed Respondent No. 2 - Society which was registered in 1987. The said building received occupation certificate from the Municipal Corporation in 1988. Admittedly, Petitioner had undertaken development of the larger property in a phase-wise development manner which is expressly contemplated in the individual Agreements executed by the Petitioner in favour of each unit / flat / shop purchasers of the Respondent No. 2 - Society. One copy of the Agreement executed between Petitioner and one such unit / flat /shop purchasers dated 16.10.1984 is appended to the Petition and on a conjoint reading of clauses 14, 24, 25 and 36 along with the location plan annexed thereto, it is clearly revealed that development undertaken by the Petitioner is a phase-wise development on the larger property and the Petitioner would be entitled to construct additional buildings / structures on the balance remaining larger property at a later date.

2.3. After 1985, certain disputes arose between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 - Society over performance of obligations under the Agreements which led to institution of two cross Suits in the Bombay Civil Civil Court at Dindoshi being S.C. Suit 4823 of 1990 and S.C. Suit No. 7410 of 1990. After a decade, these cross Suits were compromised and settled between the parties by filing two separate Consent Terms, both dated 18.02.2000. Both Consent Terms were taken on record on 18.02.2000 and 06.02.2009 and Consent Decrees were drawn up in terms thereof in both Suit proceedings. Petitioner has laid stress upon the plan annexed to both Consent Terms which clearly demonstrates the location of the larger property vis-a-vis the Society buildings and the balance area.

2.4. Under the Consent Terms, Clauses 4, 6 and 9 are relevant. Clauses 4 and 9 of the Consent Terms in S.C. Suit No. 4823 of 1990 record that Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 18 Lacs to Respondent No. 2 - Society for the benefit of its members in full and final settlement of its claims whereas Clause 6 entitled the Petitioner to construct building on the remaining portion of the larger property by utilizing the base FSI as also additional TDR that would be available in law for construction in entirety. Under clause 8 of the Consent Terms, Petitioner was required to