Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8844 OF 2016 Aghadi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

Through its Authorised Representative .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Satyam R. Dubey, Advocate for Petitioner.  Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent – State.

 Ms. M.J. Reena Rolland a/w. Ms. Aishwarya Bhandary, Advocates for Respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 7.

.....…........…

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : JULY 15, 2025.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner; Ms. Rolland, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 7 and Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The present Writ Petition impugns the judgment dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy District Registrar – Respondent No.2 rejecting the Application No.DC1000698/2014 under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (for short ‘MOFA’) filed by Petitioner – Society for grant of unilateral deemed conveyance of the plot of land bearing No.88/1A Hissa, Dargah Cross Road, Bhandup (West), Mumbai – 400 078, admeasuring 5600 sq. mts. (for short ‘suit premises’). The impugned order is appended at page No.60 of the Petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 situated on the aforementioned suit premises. The said Society was registered on 04.08.1997.

4. On 14.01.2015 Petitioner – Society i.e. original Applicant filed an Application before the Competent Authority for deemed conveyance. By order dated 24.11.2015 Respondent No.2 rejected the said Application on the ground for non-compliance of some requirements by the Petitioner – Society as stated in paragraph Nos.3 to 6 of the impugned order.

5. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

6. On 18.06.2025, after hearing Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent – State and Ms.

Rolland, the following order was passed:-

1. Heard Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for the State and Ms. Rolland, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 7.

2. Ms. Rolland, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 7 informs the Court that Respondent No.5 has expired on 21.09.2024. She has placed on record the names of the legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.5. She undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of heirs of Respondent No.5 once they are impleaded. She is directed to give their names to Mr. Dubey forthwith. Mr. Dubey is directed to carry out the necessary amendment of impleadment of the legal heirs forthwith in the presence of the Court. Re-verification stands dispensed with. Copy of the amended cause title shall be served on Ms. Rolland, learned Advocate for the newly added legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.5. She would persuade the Court to give her time to file appropriate Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of the newly added Respondents. I make it clear that the Reply, if any, should be filed within a period of one week from today, failing which this Court shall not await the reply and proceed with the Petition in accordance with law. This is because the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2016 and it is an irony that it has remained pending and has been adjourned from time to time as complained by Mr.

Dubey.

3. Mr. Dubey would submit that grievance of the Society is that despite the development having completed long back, they applied for deemed conveyance, but their Application for deemed conveyance was rejected by the Competent Authority by the impugned order dated 24.11.2015 appended at page No.62 of the Petition. He would draw my attention to the reasons and findings in the said order at page No.67 and would submit that in effect when the same is read, there is no compliance whatsoever required from the Society and the Application has been dismissed on innocu