Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.