M/S. SHANTINATH DEVELOPERS (VIRAR) C/O. MR. KIRIT K. MEHTAversusCOMPETENT OFFICER AND DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND ANR

                                                                          wp2994-2024-J.doc


                      AGK
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                     WRIT PETITION NO.2994 OF 2024
ATUL
GANESH
                      Shantinath Developers (Virar)
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
                      C/o. Kirit K. Mehta,
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.02.12
                      101, Shripal Solitaire, Building No.1,
14:43:22 +0530

                      M.B. Estate, Opposite Parmarth Niketan,
                      Virar (West), Taluka Vasai
                      District Palghar 401 303                     … Petitioner
                                          V/s.
                       1. Competent Officer & District Deputy
                          Registrar, Administrative Building A,
                          Room No.206, 2nd Floor, Near
                          Collector’s Office, Boisar Road,
                          Taluka and District Palghar
                       2. Venu Madhav A, B, & C Cooperative
                          Housing society Limited,
                          a Coop. Housing society Association
                          registered under the provisions of
                          Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
                          Act, 1960, having it’s address at
                          Venu Madhav A, B, & C Cooperative
                          Housing society Limited, Near Vijay
                          Vallabh Hospital, Tirupati Nagar
                          Phase-I, Virar West, Taluka Vasai
                          District Palghar 401 303.                … Respondents


                      Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman
                      Anand and Mr. Abir Patil (through V.C.), and Pratyusha
                      Thanawala i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co., for the
                      petitioner.
                      Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondent No.1-State.




                                                      1
                                                      wp2994-2024-J.doc


Mr. Rohan awant with Mr. Aagam Mehta i/by Mr. Vinod
Kumar Shukla and Ms. Kanchan Gupta for respondent
No.2.

                 CORAM               : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                 RESERVED ON         : JANUARY 28, 2026

                 PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 12, 2026
JUDGMENT:

1.   By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner calls in question
the legality and correctness of the order dated 9 November 2023
passed by respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Section
11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The
challenge is directed against the grant of deemed conveyance in
favour of respondent No. 2.

2.   The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows. The
petitioner is the developer of land bearing Survey No. 370, H.N. 1,
2, 3/1, 3/3, 4 to 16, 18 to 30 (Old) and Survey No. 435 (New),
admeasuring in aggregate 27,160 square metres, situated at
Village Bolinj, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar. After obtaining
requisite sanctions from the competent authorities, the petitioner
undertook development of a group housing scheme known as
“Yadushree Complex” on the said property. The southern portion of
the property, admeasuring 4,023 square metres, was developed by
constructing two buildings comprising five wings. Occupation
Certificates for these wings were obtained during the period 2013
to 2014, and possession of the completed structures was duly
handed over. An area admeasuring 3,425 square metres earmarked
as Development Plan road was surrendered to the Vasai Virar City



                                 2
                                                            wp2994-2024-J.doc


Municipal Corporation. The northern portion of the larger
property, admeasuring approximately 9,145 square metres, is
affected by a reservation for a high school and is accordingly not
available for free development.

3.      In the central portion of the property towards the western
side,    admeasuring    3,797.85    square    metres,     the   petitioner
developed a separate project known as “Venu Madhav,” consisting
of three wings designated as A, B and C. Construction of the said
project was completed. The co-operative housing society of the
purchasers in the said three wings came to be registered on 27
September 2018. Thereafter, the project was formally handed over
to the said society on 4 February 2019.

4.      The   eastern   portion    of   the   property,     admeasuring
approximately 3,600 square metres, remains available for further
development. According to the petitioner, it is entitled to utilize
the balance base FSI available on the entire property in accordance
with prevailing development control regulations and applicable
law. Within the layout, an area admeasuring 989.67 square metres
is reserved as a recreation ground.

5.      It is the petitioner’s case that in each Agreement for Sale
executed with the flat purchasers, a specific disclosure was made
under Clause 32. Under the said clause, the purchasers were
informed that the petitioner would execute conveyance of the
property in favour of a Federal Co-operative Society or Apex Body
to be formed, and that the individual societies would not object to
such conveyance. In furtherance thereof, on 4 February 2019, a




                                   3
                                                       wp2994-2024-J.doc


majority of the allottees, including all members of the managing
committee, executed a Consent Letter and Undertaking expressly
recording their agreement that the owner would execute
conveyance in favour of the Apex Body or Federal Society upon full
utilization of the total plot potential.

6.    On 19 April 2021, respondent No. 2 addressed a
communication to the petitioner seeking conveyance of that
portion of the property on which the Venu Madhav project stands
constructed. Subsequently, on 30 December 2021, respondent No.
2 preferred an application before respondent No. 1 under Section
11(3) of the Act seeking deemed conveyance of the said portion.

7.    By the impugned order dated 9 November 2023, respondent
No. 1 allowed the said application and granted deemed
conveyance in respect of an area admeasuring 4,652.26 square
metres in favour of respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner,
the said order is contrary to the terms and stipulations contained
in the Agreements for Sale executed with the flat purchasers and
also contrary to the Consent Letter and Undertaking executed by
the majority of the allottees. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
instituted the present Writ Petition.

8.    Mr. Naushad Engineer, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 1 has erred in
recording a finding that there exists a partition between the project
of respondent No. 2 and the remaining portion of the larger
property, and that the entire portion including the recreation
ground has been handed over. According to him, the alleged




                                    4
                                                        wp2994-2024-J.doc


partition is merely temporary in nature. There has been no legal
subdivision of the property. The members of respondent No. 2
were at all material times aware that such partition was
provisional and liable to be removed, so that all allottees across
the layout may have common access to the recreation ground.

9.    He further submitted that respondent No. 1 has adopted an
unduly technical interpretation of Clause 32 of the Agreements for
Sale and, in doing so, has failed to consider the Consent Letter
executed by a majority of the members of the society. The said
Consent Letter, according to him, clearly records in express terms
that the property would be conveyed to the Apex or Federal
Society upon completion of development of the entire plot. The
impugned order, he submits, proceeds without due regard to this
binding undertaking.

10.   It was next contended that respondent No. 1 has not
adverted to the fact that the project forms part of a composite
group housing scheme consisting of five buildings and other
proposed structures. The grant of conveyance of a segregated
portion of the layout in favour of respondent No. 2 would,
according to the petitioner, adversely affect its right to utilize the
balance Floor Space Index available on the remaining portion. It
would also prejudice the rights of allottees in other buildings by
restricting their access to the recreation ground and other common
amenities envisaged in the overall layout.

11.   Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that respondent
No. 2 is merely a co-operative society formed for certain buildings




                                  5
                                                        wp2994-2024-J.doc


within the larger scheme and does not represent other societies
existing or proposed on the same property. The land, according to
him, remains contiguous and undivided. In such circumstances,
respondent No. 2 cannot claim the character of an Apex or Federal
body for the entire layout. As it does not represent all allottees of
all existing or proposed buildings on the property, it lacks the locus
to seek conveyance of a larger undivided parcel.

12.   He then submitted that respondent No. 2 had, in its
application, sought conveyance of an area admeasuring 4,787.52
square metres, though the plinth area of the two buildings forming
part of its project is stated to be only 1,301.62 square metres. By
the impugned order, respondent No. 1 has granted deemed
conveyance in respect of 4,652.26 square metres, which includes
the recreation ground and certain common areas. This, according
to the petitioner, demonstrates a patent error in computation and
reflects non application of mind in determining the extent of land
appurtenant to the buildings.

13.   It was also contended that the impugned order proceeds on
an erroneous premise that there exists a formal and permanent
demarcation of the recreation ground area in favour of respondent
No. 2. This finding, according to the petitioner, is contrary to
Clause P of the Consent Letter, which specifically provides that the
provisional compound wall abutting the recreation ground would
be demolished as and when required in accordance with plans
sanctioned by the competent authority.




                                  6
                                                     wp2994-2024-J.doc


14.   Mr.   Rohan   Sawant,   learned   Advocate   appearing      for
respondent No. 1, opposed the petition and submitted that the
present challenge is directed against an order dated 9 November
2023 passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, whereby deemed
conveyance of an area admeasuring 4,652.26 square metres has
been granted to respondent No. 2 pursuant to its application
seeking such relief. He submitted that the Agreement for Sale
under the Act is dated 20 August 2012. The Occupation Certificate
for Wings A and B of respondent No. 2 was issued on 21 December
2014, and for Wing C on 19 November 2015. The society of
respondent No. 2 came to be registered on 27 September 2018.
Upon the petitioner’s failure to execute conveyance of the land
appurtenant to the said society, respondent No. 2 was constrained
to file an application dated 30 December 2021 before respondent
No. 1 seeking deemed conveyance.

15.   Learned counsel submitted that the built up area considered
for the purpose of deemed conveyance has been computed on the
basis of revised development permissions read with sanctioned
plans of 2018 issued by the Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation. The
area granted comprises 870.90 square metres for Wings A and B,
430.72 square metres for Wing C, 2,621.15 square metres towards
internal areas, and 729.49 square metres towards the recreation
ground. These figures, he submitted, are founded upon a survey
conducted for the purpose of seeking deemed conveyance and the
relevant sanctioned plans.

16.   It was further submitted that around the year 2014, the land
appurtenant to respondent No. 2, including its recreation ground,



                                7
                                                      wp2994-2024-J.doc


was permanently demarcated by the petitioner itself in order to
obtain the Occupation Certificate. The sanctioned blueprint issued
by the Municipal Corporation dated 1 October 2018 reflects such
demarcation. Photographs placed on record, it is submitted,
indicate that the separation of respondent No. 2’s portion from the
larger plot is permanent in character.

17.   According to him, the principal grievance of the petitioner
concerns the inclusion of certain areas described as common areas
within the extent of land granted under deemed conveyance. The
petitioner contends that a recreation ground admeasuring 989.67
square metres is common to the portion on which respondent No.
2’s buildings stand and the balance portion where further
development is proposed. It is further contended that there is no
permanent demarcation and that a temporary partition separates
the society’s land from the remaining portion, which would be
removed after completion of development so that allottees of both
portions may access the recreation ground.

18.   In response, it was submitted that the inclusion of the
recreation ground area within the deemed conveyance is based
upon the sanctioned plan dated 1 October 2018 issued by the
Municipal Corporation. The said plan demarcates an area of
989.67 square metres marked as RG 1, separated from the balance
portion. Another area admeasuring 347.60 square metres marked
as RG 3 is specifically shown as the recreation ground of the
balance portion. The impugned order has relied upon this
sanctioned plan while including RG 1 within the area granted to
respondent No. 2. It is further pointed out that respondent No. 1



                                  8
                                                       wp2994-2024-J.doc


has in fact granted a lesser area of 729.49 square metres towards
the recreation ground on the basis of revised development
permission dated 8 March 2013.

19.   It was submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner
pertains essentially to the nature of demarcation of the recreation
ground and common areas and to its alleged entitlement to Floor
Space Index. Such questions, it is contended, involve adjudication
of proprietary rights. It is well settled that an order of deemed
conveyance under Section 11 of the Act does not conclusively
determine title. If the petitioner claims a larger or superior right
than what is recognized by the competent authority, the
appropriate remedy is to institute a civil suit to establish such
right. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the
decisions in Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawawala ve Competent
Authority District, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028; M/s Shree
Chintamani Builders v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine
Bom 9343, Swastik Promoters and Developers v. Competent
Authority, 2025 SCC OnLine 256.

20.   Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has
sought to rely upon certain plans of the years 2011 and 2021 to
contend that the recreation ground was not demarcated and was
common to both portions. These plans, it is submitted, were not
produced before respondent No. 1 during the hearing of the
deemed conveyance application and cannot now be relied upon. In
any event, the reliance on such plans raises factual disputes
regarding demarcation, access, and specific proprietary rights,
which fall within the jurisdiction of the civil court. Reliance is



                                 9
                                                        wp2994-2024-J.doc


placed upon the decisions in Sawastik (Supra),          Mehboob Ali
Humza & Others v. District Sub-Registrar (3), Mumbai/Competent
Authority, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6021.

21.   As regards the petitioner’s contention that the Agreements
for Sale contemplate conveyance to an Apex Federation upon
completion of development of the larger property, it is submitted
that such a clause cannot override the statutory obligation under
the Act. Clauses which postpone the promoter’s obligation to
convey till completion of the entire project have been held to be
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and cannot defeat the
statutory right of flat purchasers. Reliance is placed on the decision
in Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
2025 SCC OnLine 711.

22.   In conclusion, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1
that the writ petition is devoid of merit, as it seeks adjudication of
disputed questions of fact and proprietary rights which lie within
the domain of the competent civil court and not within the limited
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.

ANALYSIS:

23.   The main complaint of the petitioner centres around the
inclusion of what it describes as common areas within the land
granted by way of deemed conveyance. According to the
petitioner, the recreation ground admeasuring 989.67 square
metres was always intended to serve the entire layout. It is said to
be a common amenity for the existing buildings as well as for the
buildings proposed on the balance portion of the property. On this



                                 10
                                                     wp2994-2024-J.doc


premise, the petitioner argues that the Competent Authority
committed an error in treating that area as forming part of the
land exclusively appurtenant to respondent No.2. The petitioner
further submits that there is, in fact, no permanent demarcation
separating the recreation ground from the balance portion. The
physical partition presently seen on site is, according to the
petitioner, temporary in nature. It is described as a provisional
arrangement made during the course of development. The
petitioner maintains that once the construction on the remaining
portion is completed, the partition will be removed and all
allottees, whether from respondent No.2’s buildings or from the
proposed buildings, will have common access to the recreation
ground.

24.   This submission again brings into focus the central dispute
between the parties. On one side is the assertion of a shared
amenity forming part of an integrated layout. On the other is the
finding of the Competent Authority, based on sanctioned plans,
that the area stands demarcated and forms part of the land to be
conveyed to respondent No.2. Whether the recreation ground is
truly common to the entire project or is confined to the portion
developed for respondent No.2 cannot be determined merely by
reading the pleadings. It requires careful scrutiny of sanctioned
layout plans, development permissions, and the intention disclosed
at the time of approval of the scheme.

25.   If the petitioner is correct that the recreation ground was
conceived as a common facility for the entire plot, then its
segregation may affect not only development rights but also the



                                11
                                                        wp2994-2024-J.doc


rights of future purchasers. Conversely, if the sanctioned plans
show a clear division and allocation of specific recreation areas to
distinct portions, then the inclusion of such area within deemed
conveyance may be justified. These are matters which hinge on
factual evaluation of plans, permissions and site conditions.

26.     In answer to the petitioner’s grievance, it is submitted that
the Competent Authority did not act on assumption or conjecture
while including the recreation ground in the deemed conveyance.
The decision, according to respondent No.1, is founded squarely
on the sanctioned plan issued by the Municipal Corporation on 1
October 2018. That plan, it is pointed out, clearly marks an area
admeasuring 989.67 square metres as RG 1. The plan also shows
this area as distinct and separated from the remaining portion of
the larger plot.

27.     It is further emphasized that the same sanctioned layout
identifies another area admeasuring 347.60 square metres as RG
3. This latter area is shown as appurtenant to the balance portion
where further development is proposed. In other words, the
sanctioned plan itself appears to allocate different recreation
grounds to different portions of the property. On this basis,
respondent No.1 submits that the recreation ground marked as RG
1 was rightly treated as appurtenant to the buildings of respondent
No.2.

28.     The impugned order specifically refers to this sanctioned
plan while determining the extent of land to be conveyed. It is not
the case that the authority carved out an area without reference to




                                  12
                                                            wp2994-2024-J.doc


planning documents. Rather, it relied on the layout approved by
the municipal body. This aspect assumes significance because
sanctioned plans carry statutory value. They reflect the manner in
which the development was approved and permitted by the
planning authority.

29.     It is also pointed out that the authority did not mechanically
grant the entire 989.67 square metres shown as RG 1. On the basis
of revised development permission dated 8 March 2013,
respondent No.1 has in fact granted a lesser area of 729.49 square
metres towards the recreation ground. This, according to
respondent     No.1,   demonstrates      application   of    mind      and
reconciliation with earlier permissions.

30.     These submissions, once again, highlight that the dispute
turns    on   interpretation   of   sanctioned   plans      and    revised
permissions. Whether RG 1 was intended to serve only respondent
No.2’s buildings or the entire layout is a matter that can be
conclusively determined only after close examination of the
planning documents, the sequence of permissions and the physical
layout on site.

31.     The controversy therefore travels beyond a simple question
of legal interpretation. It touches upon planning documents,
physical demarcation and the original design of the housing
scheme. Such matters are ordinarily examined in a properly
instituted civil proceeding where evidence can be led and tested.
In writ jurisdiction, the Court does not undertake that detailed
enquiry.




                                    13
                                                       wp2994-2024-J.doc


32.   The petitioner has also attacked the impugned order on the
ground of incorrect calculation of area. It is urged that the extent
of land granted under deemed conveyance is excessive when
compared with the plinth area of the buildings. According to the
petitioner, the authority has included internal areas and portions
such as the recreation ground without proper basis. In substance,
the grievance is that the arithmetic does not add up and that the
planning documents have not been correctly understood.

33.   Respondent No.1, on the other hand, has placed reliance on
revised development permissions and sanctioned layout plans
issued by the municipal corporation. It is stated that the
computation of 4,652.26 square metres was not arbitrary but was
derived from approved plans and a survey carried out for the
purpose of deemed conveyance. The authority has explained how
separate components such as building footprints, internal access
areas and recreation ground were taken into account.

34.   At this stage, it becomes clear that the dispute is not merely
about a number written in the order. The figure in question flows
from interpretation of sanctioned plans. It may require comparison
between original permissions and revised permissions. It may
involve checking whether the survey conducted tallies with
municipal records. It may even require reconciliation between site
measurements and approved blueprints. These are not mechanical
calculations that can be corrected by simple scrutiny in writ
proceedings.




                                 14
                                                        wp2994-2024-J.doc


35.   To determine whether the computation is correct, the Court
would have to examine technical documents in detail. The parties
may have to lead expert evidence from architects or surveyors.
Municipal officers may have to explain how certain areas were
classified. The Court may need to consider whether internal roads,
open spaces and recreation grounds were earmarked exclusively or
commonly. All this involves appreciation of evidence in a
structured manner.

36.   Writ jurisdiction is not designed for such an exercise. The
Court does not sit as a trial court in these proceedings. It does not
record oral evidence or undertake a detailed examination of
planning documents as part of a fact finding mission. When the
challenge turns on interpretation of plans, measurements and
reconciliation of records, the proper forum is the civil court where
evidence can be led and tested.

37.   For these reasons, the questions raised by the petitioner
regarding area computation cannot be conclusively decided in this
writ petition. They require a full trial and careful evidentiary
evaluation.

38.   The observations of the Division Bench in Zainul Abedin
Yusufali Massawala (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028) and the later
decisions of this Court apply directly to the controversy at hand.
Those decisions explain, in clear terms, the limited nature of an
order passed under Section 11 of the MOFA Act. A deemed
conveyance order does not create new rights. It merely transfers to
the society whatever right, title and interest the promoter actually




                                  15
                                                        wp2994-2024-J.doc


holds in the land and building. Nothing more. Nothing beyond
that.

39.     If a promoter believes that the Competent Authority has
included a larger extent of land than what is legally appurtenant to
the building, the statute does not leave the promoter without
remedy. The proper course is to approach the civil court. The civil
court has full power to examine title deeds, layout plans,
development permissions, revenue records and all surrounding
evidence. It can decide whether the society was entitled to the
entire area claimed. It can also decide whether certain portions
such as recreation grounds, internal roads or open spaces were
common to a larger layout. Importantly, the findings of the
Competent Authority do not bind the civil court. They do not
operate as res judicata. The civil court is free to independently
assess the evidence and determine rights.

40.     This principle has been repeated in several judgments of this
Court. In Shimmering Heights CHSL and others versus State of
Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2016 decided on 6 April
2016), in P.R. Enterprises and others versus Competent Authority
(Writ Petition No. 11251 of 2016 decided on 27 November 2018),
and in Mehboob Ali Humza and others versus District Sub
Registrar (3), Mumbai and others (Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2016
decided on 24 June 2016), the Division Benches of this Court has
consistently held that writ jurisdiction is not meant for resolving
disputes about title, extent of land, development rights or
ownership claims. Such issues require appreciation of documents,
examination of witnesses, and detailed factual analysis. A writ



                                  16
                                                         wp2994-2024-J.doc


petition cannot be converted into a trial. The Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 does not record evidence or conduct
a fact finding enquiry in the manner of a civil court.

41.   In the present case, the petitioner disputes the inclusion of
certain areas in the deemed conveyance. It questions the
demarcation of the recreation ground. It disputes the computation
of area. It challenges the authority of respondent No.2 to seek
conveyance. All these grounds, in substance, relate to the extent of
land and the nature of rights claimed. They are not pure questions
of law. They require scrutiny of plans, permissions, internal
documents of the society, and possibly oral evidence. These are
precisely the kind of matters which the above judgments say must
be examined by a civil court.

42.   It is equally important to note the limited role of the
Competent Authority under Section 11. The Authority verifies the
registered agreements, the sanctioned plans and the statutory
compliance. It ensures that the promoter performs the statutory
obligation of conveyance. It does not conduct a full scale
adjudication of title disputes. It does not decide complex questions
of ownership between rival claimants. Therefore, if the promoter
believes that the society has claimed more land than it is entitled
to, the Act itself contemplates that such grievance can be pursued
in civil proceedings.

43.   Once this legal position is kept in view, the apprehension of
prejudice loses force. The deemed conveyance order does not
foreclose the petitioner’s rights. It does not prevent the petitioner




                                  17
                                                           wp2994-2024-J.doc


from filing a suit. It does not bind the civil court on questions of
title or extent. The petitioner remains at liberty to institute
appropriate civil proceedings and seek declaration of its rights. It
may also seek consequential reliefs as permissible in law.

44.   In that sense, the consistent approach adopted by this Court
requires judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction. Interference at this
stage would amount to converting a supervisory proceeding into a
trial on facts. The statutory scheme and the precedents clearly
indicate that the correct course is to relegate the parties to the civil
court, where all their rival claims can be examined fully and finally
on evidence.

45.   Respondent No.1 correctly reminds that orders of deemed
conveyance are susceptible to challenge where jurisdictional
defects exist. But a blanket claim that the order is incorrect on the
facts does not convert this writ into the correct forum. The
petitioner has adequate alternative remedy in a civil suit seeking
declaration, partition, account and other reliefs. The record does
not disclose such a gross and patent illegality on the face of the
order that warrants interference in exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction.

46.   The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is relegated to
pursue its remedy before the competent civil court. The petitioner
may institute a suit appropriate reliefs in the appropriate civil
forum.

47.   It is clarified that in the event the petitioner institutes a civil
suit raising disputes regarding title, extent of land, demarcation,



                                   18
                                                     wp2994-2024-J.doc


development rights or inclusion of any portion in the deemed
conveyance, the competent civil court shall adjudicate the matter
independently and on its own merits. All questions relating to the
true extent of land appurtenant to the buildings, the character of
the recreation ground, the nature of demarcation and the
respective rights of the parties are expressly kept open for
determination in appropriate civil proceedings.

48.   No order as to costs.


                                            (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                19