M/S. NEW TURAKHIA PARK CHS LTD.versusM/S TURAKHIA ASSOCIATES AND ORS.

Renuka Thakur                                             6-WP-12116-2016.docx


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 12116 OF 2016
M/S. New Turakhia Park CHS Ltd.                      ...Petitioner
                      V/s.

M/S Turakhia Associates and Ors                 ...Respondents
                              ________________
Mr. Piyush Raheja a/w Mr. Aakash Loya i/b Mr. Ankur Kalal for Petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Kanchan (through VC) for Respondent No. 9.
Mr. Anil D'Souza a/w Mr. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Mr. Mark Dbritto, Mr.
Pavan Patil i/b Mr. Ernest Tuscano for Respondent No. 1 and 4.
Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State.
                              ________________
                                      CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                         DATED: 22 SEPTEMBER 2026.


P.C.:


1)               The Petitioner challenges order dated 15 October 2015
passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai
City (4) and Competent Authority (Deputy Registrar) rejecting
Application preferred by the Petitioner-society for issuance of certificate
of deemed conveyance.


2)               I have heard Mr. Raheja, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, Mr. D’souza, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 4, Mr. Kanchan, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 9 and          Ms. Crasto, the learned AGP appearing for
Respondent-State.



                                    Page No.1 of 6
                                 22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur                                                     6-WP-12116-2016.docx


3)               After having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the
reasons recorded by the Competent Authority in the impugned order
dated 15 October 2015, it is seen that the application of the Petitioner-
society is rejected principally on three grounds of (i) alleged entitlement
of Respondent No. 1-developer to put additional construction in the
layout (ii) presence of another building in the layout and (iii) non-grant
of Occupancy Certificate (OC) to the building of Petitioner-society.


4)               After passing of order dated 15 October 2015 passed by the
Competent Authority, law has developed through various judgments
delivered by this Court on each of the grounds of rejection. So far as the
reason of non-issuance of OC to the building of the Petitioner-society is
concerned, the same cannot be a ground for rejecting application for
deemed conveyance. The law in this regard is well-settled by judgment of
this Court in ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors.1


5)               So far as the reason of layout development is concerned, this
Court has repeatedly held that mere objection of a developer about
incomplete development of layout cannot be a ground for not granting
proportionate share in the layout land to the society of completed
building. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this
Court in Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Ors.2


1    Writ Petition No. 406 of 2018, decided on 25 November 2024
2    Writ Petition No. 6418 of 2017 decided on 26 March 2025

                                            Page No.2 of 6
                                         22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur                                            6-WP-12116-2016.docx


6)              Whether Respondent No. 1 is entitled to retain any portion
of land in the layout would be clear only after land entitlement of
Petitioner-society and Respondent No. 9-society is determined.
Therefore, mere objection raised by Respondent No. 1 about its alleged
entitlement to effect further construction could not have been a reason
for rejecting Petitioner’s application for deemed conveyance.


7)              Similarly, mere presence of another building in layout
(Respondent No. 9-society) cannot be a ground for non-grant of
proportionate share in favour of the Petitioner-society in the layout land.
It appears that the second building in the layout has already received
conveyance of proportionate share in the land.


8)              In the present case, Petitioner-society is formed and
registered on 16 February 1990. Its right to secure proportionate share in
the land got crystallized on expiry of period of four months on formation
of the society (16 June 1990) as per provisions of Section 11 of the
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 read with Rule 9
of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction etc.) Rules, 1964. Therefore, sanctioned plan which existed
as on 16 June 1990 would determine the entitlement of the Petitioner-
society for proportionate share in the land. Accordingly, the Competent
Authority needs to undertake the exercise of proportionate land division
by taking into consideration the plan which existed as on 16 June 1990.
According to Mr. Raheja, such plan is dated 6 October 1976 which
position is disputed by Mr. D'souza. In my view, in the remanded

                                   Page No.3 of 6
                                22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur                                            6-WP-12116-2016.docx


proceedings, the Competent Authority needs to take into consideration
the exact plan which existed as on 16 June 1990 for undertaking the
exercise of proportionate land. Mr. Raheja also brings to the notice of
this Court that Respondent No. 9-society has been granted proportionate
share in the layout plan by taking into consideration the sanctioned plan
dated 6 October 1976 and on basis of certificate of architect Mr. Aniket D.
Mathakar. He invites attention of this Court to the certificate issued by
the same architect which determines land entitlement of Petitioner-
society as 2282.46 sq.m. in the net plot area together with undivided
share in the RG admeasuring 455.37 sq.m. and 44.69% proportionate
undivided rights in common internal road area admeasuring 298.07
sq.m. This computation is disputed by Mr. D’souza. In the remanded
proceedings before the Competent Authorities, both parties shall be
entitled to rely upon certificates of their respective architects. Such
certificates need to prepared by taking into consideration the sanctioned
plan which existed as on 16 June 1990 and no other plan.


9)              Thus the Competent Authority has erred in rejecting
application of Petitioner-society for deemed conveyance. The impugned
order deserves to be set aside and the application deserves to be
remanded for fresh decision.


10)             The Petition accordingly succeeds in part and I proceed to
pass the following order:-


                (i)   Order dated 15 October 2015 passed by the Competent
                Authority is set aside.

                                     Page No.4 of 6
                                  22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur                                                     6-WP-12116-2016.docx




                (ii)     Application No.182 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner-
                society is remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh
                adjudication.


                (iii)    While doing fresh adjudication by undertaking the
                exercise of proportionate land division in the layout, the
                Competent Authority shall have due regard to the law
                declared by this Court in Satellite Garden I CHSL vs. State of
                Maharashtra and Ors.3


                (iv)     The Petitioner-society would be at liberty to amend
                Application No. 182 of 2014 for the purpose of claiming the
                correct area for conveyance in the layout plan.


                (v)      Parties shall appear before the Competent Authority
                on 12 October 2026 alongwith copy of this order downloaded
                from website of this Court and shall apply for fixation of
                date(s) of hearing in the remanded proceedings.


                (vi)     All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are
                expressly kept open.


                (vii)    The Competent Authority shall proceed to decide the
                remanded proceedings on its own merits as expeditiously as
                possible preferably within a period of six months.

3   Writ Petition No.1128 of 2026 decided on 16 September 2026.

                                           Page No.5 of 6
                                        22 SEPTEMBER 2026
                          Renuka Thakur                                              6-WP-12116-2016.docx


                          11)             With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly
                          allowed. Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.


                                                                             [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
                                                            Page No.6 of 6
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                      22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 24/09/2026 15:41:23