SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1992

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
WP/3188/2023



Advocates:
Mr. Vikramjeet Garewal i/b Narayanan & Narayanan for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. GP for State, Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 11. Mr. Karl Tamboly i/b Mr. Maulik Tanna, for Respondent No. 3. Mr. Kishor D. Shah, for Respondent No. 10.

The court affirmed that the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to grant unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA, despite prior agreements not conforming to Form V.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Section 11 - Unilateral deemed conveyance of land - Petitioner challenges the order granting conveyance of land to the society, arguing jurisdictional errors and violation of natural justice - The Competent Authority conveyed land based on an architect's report without hearing the parties post-closure of arguments - The court held that the agreements executed prior to the introduction of Form V do not govern the conveyance of land, which must comply with Section 11 of MOFA - The court found no serious error in the order of conveyance and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Natural Justice - The principle of audi alteram partem was violated as the Competent Authority did not provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to respond to the architect's report - However, the court determined that remanding the case would serve no practical purpose. (Paras 20-21)

(C) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that the Competent Authority had the jurisdiction to grant conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA, despite the Petitioner's claims regarding ownership and the area of land. (Paras 11-24)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, claiming ownership of land, challenged the Competent Authority's order granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land to the society based on an architect's report. The Petitioner argued that the conveyance violated the agreements with flat purchasers and principles of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Competent Authority acted within its jurisdiction and that the agreements did not preclude the conveyance of land as required by Section 11 of MOFA.

Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to grant conveyance, the validity of the agreements executed prior to Form V, and the violation of natural justice principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Competent Authority had the jurisdiction to convey land under Section 11 of MOFA and that the agreements did not limit this authority. The court also held that while there was a technical violation of natural justice, it did not warrant remand.

Result: Petition dismissed without any orders as to costs.

Judgement Key Points

No legal document content was provided in the tag. Please provide the full document text for analysis and key point extraction.


JUDGMENT:-

1) By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges Order dated 15 November 2022 as well as Corrigendum dated 20 December 2022 passed by District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai (2) Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai and Competent Authority granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 1137.56 sq. mtrs. in favour of Respondent No.3-Society.

2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that one Dattatraya Khanderav Ladewar was the owner in respect of land bearing CTS Nos. 866, 866/1 to 866/13, village Mulund, District Mumbai Suburban. Said Dattatraya Khanderao Ladewar entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 21 August 1978 and agreed to assign his right, title and interest in the said land in favour of the Petitioner. It appears that Respondent No.10-Dharma Builders in whose favor the Indenture of Lease dated 16 May 1975 was executed by said Dattatraya Khanderao Ladewar also executed the Agreement dated 23 August 1978 in favor of the Petitioner to transfer the lease its favor. Petitioner got the building plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for the construction of a building consisting of ground and six upper floors (5 Shops and 18 Flats). An Intimation of Disapproval was issued by the Municipal Corporation on 12 February 1979. Petitioner entered into various Agreements for Sale with the purchasers of flats and shops. Respondent No.3-Society was formed by such purchasers of flats and shop. The society filed an application dated 7 February 2022 before the Competent Authority under provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) seeking a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 1274.57 sq. mtrs including protected proportionate road set back area admeasuring 65.03 sq. mtrs. out of the total land. The application was opposed by Petitioner by filing a reply. Petitioner took a defence inter-alia that as per Agreements executed with flat purchasers, only a lease in respect of constructed structure (building) for a period 999 years could be granted in favour of the society and that Petitioner shall continue to remain owner in respect of the entire land.

3) It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, the Competent Authority called for a technical report of its empaneled Architect vide letter dated 23 September 2022. The Architect submitted the report vide Certificate dated 21 October 2022 concluding that the area of land to be conveyed to the society could only be 1137.56 sq. mtrs. Based on the Architect’s Certificate, the Competent Authority passed an Order dated 15 November 2022 conveying land admeasuring 1137.56 sq. mtrs. in favor of the Society. The Corrigendum dated 20 December 2022 has been issued only for the purpose of recording the correct number of members of Respondent No.3-Society as 24 instead of 21. Petitioner is aggrieved by Order dated 15 November 2022 and Corrigendum dated 20 December 2022 and has filed the present Petition.

4) Mr. Garewal, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that the Competent Authority has erred in granting the conveyance of land on an ownership basis in favour of the society. He would submit that the Competent Authority does not have jurisdiction to convey something which is not provided for in the Agreements executed with the flat purchasers. He would invite my attention to clause 29 of one of the Agreements executed with the flat purchaser, under which the parties had agreed that only a lease in respect of the building for a term of 999 years would be executed in favour of the society. That clause 29 specifically provides that the entire land shall belong to Petitioner exclusively. He would submit that the agreements with the flat purchasers have been executed before the introduction of Form V under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Constructi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top