Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MAMTA LAXMAN HATISKARversusSAIKRUPA SAHAKARI GRUHRACHANA SANSTHA LTD ALIAS SAIKRUPA SHAKARI GRUHNIRMAN SANSTHA LTD AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Competent Authority cannot decide the validity of the Development Agreement and the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance is not final, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Mamta Laxman Hatiskar, challenged a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance granted by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, alleging that she held a share in the land and that the developer had constructed buildings without a valid development agreement. The court noted that the developer had a dated Development Agreement and planning permission, and the petitioner had not opposed the construction or the formation of the cooperative housing society until the deemed conveyance application. The court held that the Competent Authority, being a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate the validity of the Development Agreement, which is a matter for a civil court. It further observed that a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance is not conclusive of parties' rights, citing the Apex Court's decision in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co‑Operative Society Ltd. Consequently, the petition to set aside the certificate was dismissed, with the petitioner directed to pursue relief in a regular civil suit.

Issues considered

  • Can the District Deputy Registrar, as Competent Authority, entertain a challenge to the validity of a Development Agreement and the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance?
  • Is a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance final and determinative of the parties' rights in respect of the land?
  • Should the petitioner raise the objection to the Development Agreement in a writ petition or in a civil suit?

Subjects

  • unilateral deemed conveyance
  • co‑operative society
  • development agreement
  • civil suit jurisdiction
  • certificate of conveyance
  • land ownership dispute
  • tribunal jurisdiction

Judgment

Neeta Sawant                                                     12-WP-12801-2026.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12801 OF 2026


Mamta Laxman Hatiskar                                                 ...Petitioner


                    : Versus :


Saikrupa          Sahakari       Gruhrachana                          ...Respondents
Sanstha Ltd. alias Saikrupa Sahakari
Gruhnirman Sanstha Ltd. & Ors.



Mr. M.D. Ramteke, for the Petitioner.

Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for State.



                                            CORAM:        SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                             DATED:       30 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:


1)                The petition challenges order dated 5 August 2026 passed
by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune (Rural)
and Competent Authority granting certificate of unilateral deemed
conveyance in respect of the land and the building in favour of
Respondent No.1-society.


2)                I have heard Mr. Ramteke, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by
him.
                                       PAGE NO. 1 of 3
                                  Wednesday, 30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                    12-WP-12801-2026.docx


3)                 It is contended by Mr. Ramteke that Petitioner has a share
in the land and in absence of any document executed by the Petitioner
granting development rights in the land, building has been illegally
constructed by Respondent No.6-developer acting on the basis of the
alleged unregistered Development Agreement dated 8 April 1994.


4)                 It is seen that the Developer has acted on the basis of
Development Agreement dated 8 April 1994 and secured development
permission from the Planning Authority.              Thereafter, the developer
constructed two buildings comprising of 20 flats and and 6 shops on
the land in question. Petitioner never stopped the developer from
constructing the buildings. Petitioner also did not oppose formation of
Co-operative Housing Society, which got registered on 19 December
1998.          It is only at the time when the society          applied for deemed
conveyance that the Petitioner thought of asserting his alleged
ownership in the land and raised objection to the validity of
Development Agreement dated 8 April 1994.                 Competent Authority
being a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, cannot decide the issue of
validity of the Development Agreement. That issue can be decided only
by the Civil Court. It appears that Petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit
No. 167/2026 questioning the validity of the Development Agreement
and other related documents. In that Suit, Petitioner can also challenge
Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance dated 5 August 2026. By
now it is well settled position that certificate of unilateral deemed
conveyance is not final determinative of rights and entitlements of
parties in respect of the conveyed land. Reference in this regard can be
made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arunkumar H. Shah
HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-Operative Society Limited and Others1.
1[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1350
                                      PAGE NO. 2 of 3
                                 Wednesday, 30 September 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                               12-WP-12801-2026.docx


                      5)             In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to
                      entertain challenge by the Petitioner to the impugned order dated 5
                      August 2026.       Reserving the liberty to the Petitioner as discussed
                      above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.


                                                                     [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]
         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
         2026.10.01
         16:51:00
         +0530




                                                       PAGE NO. 3 of 3
                                                  Wednesday, 30 September 2026


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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