Bombay High Court

PAYAL CHANDRASHEKHAR JUKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ORS

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

The court held that the petitioner, having transferred all rights, title, and interest in 1982, could not challenge the deemed conveyance order.

Summary

The petitioner, Shabnoor Ayub, claimed ownership of a flat and challenged a deemed conveyance order dated 18 May 1982 issued under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, alleging denial of a proper hearing. The respondent State argued that the petitioner had already executed a registered sale deed in 1982, transferring all rights to a company which later entered a development agreement, and that lack of mutation entry did not revive ownership. The court examined whether the petitioner retained any enforceable rights after the 1982 transfer and whether the procedural requirement of a hearing was satisfied. It held that the prior transfer extinguished the petitioner's claim to the property and barred any challenge to the deemed conveyance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with no costs, and the related interim application was also disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner retained any ownership or enforceable rights over the flat after executing a sale deed in 1982.
Whether the deemed conveyance order under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act was passed without granting a proper hearing.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 — s. 11(3)

Subjects

property law
deemed conveyance
sale deed
mutation entry
hearing
Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act
civil writ petition

Judgment

                                                                 9-wp-15320-2025 with connected.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.15320 OF 2025
SHABNOOR
AYUB                  Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar                  … Petitioner
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
                                 V/s.
PATHAN
Date: 2026.02.02
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.             … Respondents
15:49:25 +0530



                                                   WITH
                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO.910 OF 2026
                                                     IN
                                       WRIT PETITION NO.15320 OF 2025

                      Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar                  … Applicant
                               In the matter between
                      Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar                  … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.             … Respondents

                      Mr. Rohit Kurmi, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Ashish Jagiasi a/w Minal Chandnani, for the
                      Respondent No.3.
                      Ms. Mamta S. Srivastava, AGP, for the State –
                      Respondent Nos.1 & 2.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : FEBRUARY 2, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property in
                      respect of which the Competent Authority, in exercise of powers
                      under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats
                      (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management
                      and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”), has passed an order of deemed


                                                        1
                                            9-wp-15320-2025 with connected.doc


conveyance. The petitioner contends that the impugned deemed
conveyance order dated 18 May 1982 has been passed without
granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2.    However, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent
society pointed out that the petitioner has already executed a
registered sale deed in respect of the subject property in favour of
a company, which in turn has executed a development agreement
in favour of a developer. Merely because a mutation entry has not
been effected, the petitioner cannot claim subsisting ownership or
consequential enforceable rights in respect of the subject property.
Once the petitioner has transferred all its right, title, and interest
in the property as far back as in the year 1982, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to enforce any rights in the present petition so
as to challenge the order of deemed conveyance in respect of flats
sold by the promoter through the transferee of the petitioner.

3.    Hence, there is no merit in the present petition. The petition
is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

4.    In view of the above, the interim application does not survive
and stands disposed of.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…