Bombay High Court

DEEPAK BUILDERS THROUGH PARTNER RAMESH DALICHAND JAINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court granted leave to withdraw the additional respondents, accepted the Consent Terms, modified the impugned order to reflect the reduced area, and disposed of the petition.

Summary

Deepak Builders filed a writ petition challenging a Competent Authority order that deemed conveyance of a property to Respondent No.3 Society. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw respondents Nos.4‑7, who had been added earlier, and later the parties reached an amicable settlement, executing Consent Terms that reduced the conveyance area from 2,176.16 to 1,450 square metres. The Court granted leave to withdraw the additional respondents, accepted the voluntarily executed Consent Terms, and ordered the impugned order to be modified accordingly. The Court recorded the Consent Terms on the record and disposed of the petition. The parties affirmed that the settlement was free of coercion or duress.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw respondents Nos.4‑7 from the writ petition.
Whether the Court can accept and give effect to the parties' voluntarily executed Consent Terms modifying the deemed conveyance.
Whether the impugned order of the Competent Authority can be modified in accordance with the settlement.

Subjects

withdrawal of parties
amendment of petition
settlement
consent terms
deemed conveyance
modification of order
civil procedure

Judgment

                                                                     76-WP1979-2026.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 1979 OF 2026

                      Deepak Builders                                      ...Petitioner
                                        Versus
                      State of Maharashtra and Ors.                      …Respondents



                      Mr. Dharmesh Jain, a/w Arpita Tiwari, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Rupali Gupta, i/b Lakshyavedhi Legal, for Respondent
                           No.3.
                      Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State of
                           Maharashtra.

                                                    CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                    DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

                      2.   The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to

                      withdraw the petition qua respondent Nos.4 to 7, who were

                      permitted to be added pursuant to the order dated 22 nd

                      February, 2025.

                      3.   It does not appear that respondent Nos.4 to 7, who were

SANTOSH
SUBHASH
                      impleaded as party respondents before the Competent Authority
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.08
10:16:40 +0530        have challenged the order passed by the Competent Authority

                      dated 5th April, 2024, thereby directing execution of deemed

                      conveyance in favour of respondent No. 3 Society.

                                                      1/3
                                                   76-WP1979-2026.DOC

4.    Leave granted.

5.    Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

6.    The learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent

No.3 – Society submit that the petitioner and respondent No.3 -

Society, have amicably resolved the dispute and Consent Terms

have been executed.

7.    The learned counsel for the parties seek leave tender the

Consent Terms.

8.    Mr. Dineshkumar D. Jain and Mr. Rameshbhai D. Jain,

the   partners   of    the   petitioner,   Mr.   Arvindkumar    Oza,

Chairperson of Respondent No.3 Society, Ms. Usha Shukla,

Secretary of Respondent No.3 Society and Mr. Vinay Shukla,

Treasurer of Respondent No.3 Society, are present before the

Court. The parties submit that they have read and understood

the contents of the Consent Terms. The parties admit the

contents of the Consent Terms and execution thereof.

9.    Upon being specifically inquired, the office bearers of

respondent No.3 Society submit that, they are agreeable for

conveyance of 1450 Sq. Mtrs. area instead of 2176.16 Sq. Mtrs.

granted by the Competent Authority by the impugned order.




                                 2/3
                                               76-WP1979-2026.DOC

10.    It appears that the parties have voluntarily executed the

Consent Terms and there is no coercion or duress. The parties

are identified by their respective Advocates. It seems that the

parties have decided to resolve all the disputes and a

comprehensive settlement has been arrived at between the

parties.

11.    The Consent Terms are thus taken on record and marked

‘X’.

12.    The petition stands disposed in accordance with the

Consent Terms ‘X’.

13.    The impugned order shall stand modified in accordance

with the Consent Terms ‘X’ to the extent of the area of the

property in respect of which deemed conveyance has been

granted.

14.    The undertakings given in the Consent Terms ‘X’ are

accepted as undertakings to the Court.

       The petition stands disposed.

                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.