Bombay High Court
YASHWANT PUNDLIK BHOIRversusM/S. BHIMKRUPA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order of deemed conveyance is valid and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Yashwant Pundlik Bhoir challenged a September 2025 order of the District Deputy Registrar Co‑operative Societies, Thane, which issued a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of 1,512.60 sq yards of land to M/s. Bhimkrupa Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd. The petitioner claimed the land had been sanctioned for a chawl in 1983, that he had constructed and sold units, and that he did not receive notice of the deemed‑conveyance application. The court found that notice had been duly served as per postal tracking records and that the competent authority correctly relied on the sanctioned plan and occupation certificate to determine the society’s entitlement. The petitioner also argued that his subsequent sale of the land to third parties extinguished the society’s right under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, but the court held that the statutory obligation to convey passes to the purchasers and does not defeat the society’s right. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the deemed conveyance order in view of the petitioner's claim of non‑receipt of notice.
- Whether the petitioner's sale of the land extinguishes the statutory right of the cooperative society under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.
- Whether the competent authority correctly determined the area entitlement based on the sanctioned plan and occupation certificate.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- deemed conveyance
- co‑operative housing society
- Section 11
- MOFA Act
- notice service
- land sale
- writ petition
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34935
Renuka 13-WP-10688-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10688 OF 2026
Yashwant Pundlik Bhoir ...Petitioner
V/s.
M/S. Bhimkrupa Co-Operative Housing ...Respondents
Society Ltd. and Ors
________________
Mr. Dnyaneshwahar Deshmukh for Petitioner.
Mr. Sumedh Modak with Mr. R. M. Gogle for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Yatin S. Khochare ‘B’ Panel for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 24 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged the order dated
25 September 2025 passed by the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative
Societies, Thane and Competent Authority (Competent Authority)
issuing certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring
1512.60 sq. yards i.e. 1264.73 sq. mtrs out of total land admeasuring 4140
sq. mtrs in favour of the Respondent No. 1-society.
2) I have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, Mr. Modak, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Khochare, the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent-State.
Page No.1 of 3
24 August 2026
Renuka 13-WP-10688-2026.docx
3) The Petitioner has attached plan, which he got sanctioned
from the Grampanchayat in the year 1983 for constriction of the
structure, which according to the Petitioner is a ‘Chawl’. The said
sanctioned plan would indicate that development was undertaken in
respect of land admeasuring 1512.60 sq. yards . This would mean that
land admeasuring 1512.60 sq. yards out of total land admeasuring 4140
sq. mtrs was subjected to housing scheme and the Petitioner constructed
a structure and sold units constructed therein. The Competent Authority
has rightly taken into consideration the said sanctioned plan as well as
the occupation certificate for determining area entitlement of the first
Respondent-society at 1512.60 sq. yards (1264.73 sq. mtrs).
4) The complaint sought to be raised on behalf of the
Petitioner about non receipt of notice in the Application for deemed
conveyance appears to be baseless in the light of specific postal tracking
reports which indicate that Petitioner was served with notice of the
Application.
5) It is also sought to be contended that the Plaintiff has
already sold the entire land in favour of Shri. Ganesh Bharat Naik and
Shri. Gaurav Sunil Patil. If that is the case, the obligation under Section
11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963(MOFA Act) to
convey the land has passed from the Petitioner on to the purchasers.
What is sold by the Petitioner is land which he was supposed to be
conveyed in favour of the first Respondent-society. Therefore, what is
Page No.2 of 3
24 August 2026
Renuka 13-WP-10688-2026.docx
purchased by the purchases is only an obligation to convey the land to
the society under Section 11 (1) of the MOFA Act. Such sale does not
extinguish statutory right of Respondent No.1-society.
6) Considering the above position, there is no warrant for
interference in the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 24 August 2026
Date: 25/08/2026 16:29:43
Checking your session…