M/S. SHREE DATTA DEVELOPERS THRU PARTNER SUDESH CHANDRAKANT KAWADEAND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

Neeta Sawant                                         20-WP-10620-2026.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 10620 OF 2026


Shree Datta Developers & Ors.                               …..Petitioners
       : Versus :
State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                  ….Respondents

Mr. Bhagwat Phad, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vijaykumar Dhakane, for Respondent Nos.5(a), 5(b) and 5(c).
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for State.



                                         CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                         DATED : 19 AUGUST 2026.
P.C :

1)               This is a petition filed by the land owners, as well as,
developers challenging order dated 24 March 2026 passed by the District
Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune City, Pune and
Competent Authority (Competent Authority) issuing Certificate of
unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 2062.39 sq.mts in
favour of Respondent No.4-society.


2)               I have heard Mr. Phad, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Dhakane, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.5(a) to 5(c) and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.


3)               Perusal of the order passed by the Competent Authority
would indicate that a plan was sanctioned on 23 January 2004 by Pune

_____________________________________________________________________________
                                  PAGE NO. 1 of 4
                              Wednesday, 19 August 2026
Neeta Sawant                                        20-WP-10620-2026.docx


Municipal Corporation for construction of only two buildings, A and B.
Based on sanctioned plans, it appears that flat purchase agreements
under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963
(MOFA) were executed by which the entire land admeasuring 2400
sq.mts at Survey No.68/10A, C.T.S. No.812/9, Ghorpadi in Pune City
was subjected to the housing scheme.          Petitioners have constructed
Buildings-A and B and have consumed the entire development potential
in respect of the land. It appears that out of the total land admeasuring
2400 sq.mts, land admeasuring 337.16 sq.mts has gone for road widening
leaving behind only land admeasuring 2062.39 sq.mts. The Competent
Authority has granted conveyance of entire land admeasuring 2062.39
sq.mts to Respondent No.4-Society.


4)             Mr. Phad, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the Petitioners propose to construct a third building on the
plot and that a separate area has been carved out for that purpose. He
submits that as of now that area is not even in possession of the 4th
Respondent-Society and has been granted on lease in favour of a
different entity. He submits that the Petitioners are now in the process
of submitting revised plans to the Municipal Corporation for
construction of the third building on the said carved out portion of the
land. I am afraid, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to construct any
new building on the plot.         As observed above, out of the land
admeasuring 2400 sq.mts area admeasuring 337.61 sq.mts as gone in
road widening and in respect of the entire balance land admeasuring
2062.39 sq.mts, development permission was granted by the Municipal
Corporation on 23 January 2004 for construction of only two buildings.

_____________________________________________________________________________
                                  PAGE NO. 2 of 4
                              Wednesday, 19 August 2026
Neeta Sawant                                        20-WP-10620-2026.docx


Construction of the two buildings is complete and Occupancy Certificate
is issued on 20 February 2014.        As observed above, the entire land
admeasuring 2400 sq.mts was subject to Section 4 Agreements. The flat
purchasers of Buildings-A and B have formed a Co-operative Housing
Society which is registered on 21 October 2004. Under the provisions of
Section 11(1) MOFA read with Section 9 of MOFA Rules, there is a
statutory obligation on the Petitioners to convey the land in favour of the
Society so formed. Thus, upon expiry of period of 4 months from 21
October 2004, Petitioners were under obligation to convey the entire
land which was subject matter of Section 4 Agreements in favour of the
organization of flat purchasers. Petitioners have committed a folly by
violating the provisions of Section 11 of MOFA and have failed to execute
the conveyance in favour of the Housing Society. Now they want to take
benefit of their own wrong by submitting revised plans to the Municipal
Corporation for the purpose of taking benefit of the additional FSI
arising out of change in the FSI regime or by loading transferrable
development rights. This cannot be permitted to be done. With sale of
all flats in Buildings-A and B, Petitioners are divested of their right, title
or interest in the land. Once a land is subjected to housing scheme and
agreements under Section 4 of MOFA are executed, with sale of each flat
in the building, there is corresponding dilution of title in the land of the
promoter/owner. Therefore, once all the 60 units of Buildings-A and B
are sold, Petitioners got completely divested of their         ownership in
respect of whole of the land. They no longer remain the owner in respect
of the land. However, they have violated the provisions of Section 11(1) of
MOFA and did not execute a formal document of conveyance in favour
of the organisation of flat purchasers. Failure to perform statutory duty
under Section 11(1) of MOFA has conferred jurisdiction on the

_____________________________________________________________________________
                                  PAGE NO. 3 of 4
                              Wednesday, 19 August 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                        20-WP-10620-2026.docx


                      Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA. The Competent
                      Authority has accordingly stepped into the shoes of the promoters /land
                      owners and have performed duty which MOFA originally casts upon the
                      promoters/land owners.


                      5)             In view of the above discussion, in my view, conveyance of
                      the land can neither be delayed in favour of Respondent No.4-Society for
                      the purpose of construction of third building by the Petitioners nor the
                      third building can be permitted to be constructed since Respondent No.4-
                      society is actually the owner of the land admeasuring 2062.39 sq.mts. I
                      find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the
                      Competent Authority. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with
                      no order as to costs.


         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT   Date:
         2026.08.20
                                                                    [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
         15:01:14
         +0530




                      _____________________________________________________________________________
                                                        PAGE NO. 4 of 4
                                                    Wednesday, 19 August 2026