Bombay High Court
SOHAM RESIDENCY COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GOVT PLEADER ANDORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court found no warrant for interference and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the Competent Authority’s order intact.
Summary
The petitioner, Soham Residency Co‑op. Housing Society Ltd., challenged a September 2025 order of the Competent Authority that granted it a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance for 1,162.60 sq.m. of land, alleging that the undivided share in the common RG area of 162.47 sq.m. was not correctly allotted. The petitioner relied on an architect’s certificate that calculated its proportional share of the land as 4.91%, amounting to 1,083.16 sq.m. (920.68 sq.m. plot area plus 162.47 sq.m. RG area). The court noted that the Competent Authority had granted a larger area than the architect’s calculation and that the respondents had not appeared despite service. However, the judge held that no warrant existed for interfering with the order and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the order of the Competent Authority stands.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate share of land, including common RG area, to be allotted to the cooperative housing society under the architect’s certificate?
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Competent Authority’s order granting a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance despite the alleged discrepancy.
Subjects
- land conveyance
- cooperative housing society
- unilateral deemed conveyance
- architect's certificate
- common area
- RG area
- High Court
- writ petition
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 15-WP-10732-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10732 OF 2026
Soham Residency Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd. …..Petitioner
: Versus :
The State of Maharashtra through
The Government Pleader & Ors. ….Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. V.S. Hadade with Mr. Aniket Nangare and Mr. Shubham Walunj, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. A.A. Purav, AGP for State.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 24 AUGUST 2026.
P.C. :
1) By this petition, the Petitioner-Society has challenged order
dated 29 September 2025 passed by the Competent Authority granting
Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 1162.60
sq.mts in favour of the Petitioner-Society. The grievance of the Petitioner-
___________________________________________________________________________
__________PAGE NO. 1 of 3_________
Monday, 24 August 2026
Neeta Sawant 15-WP-10732-2026.docx
Society is that the undivided share in common RG area of 162.47 sq.mts is
not granted to the Petitioner-Society.
2) I have heard Mr. Hadade, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and considered the submissions canvassed by him. It appears that
before the Competent Authority, none of the Respondents have appeared
despite being duly served. Considering the nature of order that is proposed
to be passed in the present petition, I am of the view that it is not necessary
to issue notice to the Respondents.
3) Perusal of the order passed by the Competent Authority would
indicate that he has failed to take into consideration the Certificate of
Architect relied upon by the Petitioner-Society. The Architect ’s Certificate
would indicate that the total BUA in respect of Buildings-Q, Y, S and W is
24,052.37 sq.mts, out of which, BUA sanctioned for Petitioner ’s Building-W
is 1180.83 sq.mts. The total plot area is 22,062.85 sq.mts and after
deducting 15% RG area, the net plot area is 18,753.42 sq.mts. The Architect
has determined the proportionate share of the Petitioner in the land as
4.91%. Accordingly, the Architect has determined that in respect of gross
land area of 22,062.85 sq.mts, share of the Petitioner-Society is 1083.16
sq.mts which is divided by him into balance plot area on pro-rata basis of
920.68 sq.mts and undivided rights in common RG area of 162.47 sq.ms.
Perusal of the order of the Competent Authority would indicate that it has
granted excess area in favour of the Petitioner than the one indicated by its
own Architect as against total area entitled of 1083.16 sq.mts (plot area of
920.68 sq.mts + RG area of 162.47 sq.mts).
___________________________________________________________________________
__________PAGE NO. 2 of 3_________
Monday, 24 August 2026
Neeta Sawant 15-WP-10732-2026.docx
4) Considering the above position, there is no warrant for
interference in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly
rejected.
Digitally [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.25
08:59:06
+0530
___________________________________________________________________________
__________PAGE NO. 3 of 3_________
Monday, 24 August 2026
Checking your session…