2023:BHC-AS:40087-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3935 OF 2023 Janta Housing Private Limited …Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12734 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3935 OF 2023 Janta Housing Private Limited …Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Janta Housing Private Limited …Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Anoshak Daver a/w Rushabh Sheth, Pratibha Rupnawar & Suveena Shetty i/b Samatva Legal Associates, for the Petitioner.

A. M. Saraogi a/w Amit G. Dubey, for Respondent No.3.

Pooja Batra a/w Mansi Jain i/b Pratik Amin, for Respondent No.4.

V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.

_______________________________________________________________

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 19th DECEMBER 2023 JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Daver, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Saraogi a/w Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, Ms. Batra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 and Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent-State.

2. The Petitioner by way of the present Writ Petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 14th July 2022 (“impugned Order”) passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane in Application No.186 of 2022 preferred under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”) seeking ‘Deemed Conveyance’. By the impugned Order, Deemed Conveyance has been granted in favour of the Respondent No.3-Society.

3. Mr. Daver, learned Counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions:

(i) The Petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings under the Application preferred for obtaining unilateral Deemed Conveyance (“said proceedings”) and therefore the impugned Order has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice.

(ii) Adjacent Societies located on an undivided larger land parcel have also not been made parties to the said proceedings and therefore those parties are adversly affected.

(iii) Incorrect area has been granted in favour of Respondent No.3-

Society by the impugned Order.

(iv) No proper reasons are provided for granting Deemed Conveyance of an area of 2,304 sq. mtrs. in favour of the Respondent No.3-

Society.

(v) The Architect Certificate dated 28th February 2022 is the sole basis for passing the impugned Order and other material on record has not been taken into consideration and therefore the impugned Order is required to be quashed and set aside.

(vi) The Respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar has not followed the Government Resolution dated 22nd June 2018 while passing the impugned Order.

(vii) The Respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar should have taken into consideration the fact that the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 have filed Suit No.763 of 2013 in respect of obstruction of open space by the Respondent No.3-Society and that the same is pending.

(viii)Mr. Daver submitted that the Writ Petition is maintainable as there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that as there are no disputed questions of title or facts involved, the Writ Petition can be entertained. Mr. Daver, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, to support said contention and also that as the impugned Order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, the same is required to be quashed and set aside, has relied on the following decisions:

[a] Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924 1 KB 256]

[b] A.H. Wadia Trust v. State of Maharashtra, [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1441]

[c] Tushar Jivram Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, [(2015) 4 Mah LJ 867]

[d] Kashish Park Reality Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ⁴ [e] Vijay Builders & Developers v. Competent Authority ⁵ [f]