Bombay High Court
GAGAN SOLITAIRE CHS LTD.versusCHAIRMAN / SECRETARY, SAMRAT EMPIRE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order granting unilateral deemed conveyance is set aside because the Competent Authority failed to conduct a proportionate land division and relied on an erroneous architect’s certificate.
Summary
The petitioner, Gagan Solitaire CHS Ltd., challenged an order dated 5 September 2023 issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Palghar and the Competent Authority that granted a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of 3,143 sq. m. of land to the respondent housing society. The challenge was based on the allegation that the Competent Authority relied on an architect’s certificate that referenced an outdated 2005 building plan and failed to conduct a proper proportionate land division analysis. The Court observed that the architect’s certificate merely considered the built‑up area without determining the society’s rightful land entitlement, and that the Competent Authority blindly accepted this erroneous certificate. Consequently, the Court held that the order and the consequent deed of conveyance and revenue entry must be set aside. The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication, with directions that both parties may submit their own architects’ certificates and that the Authority must consider the 22 June 2018 Government Resolution and relevant precedents. The writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Competent Authority validly issued a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance based on an architect’s certificate that did not perform proportionate land division.
- Whether the order dated 5 September 2023 and the resulting deed of conveyance should be set aside.
- Whether the proceedings should be remanded for fresh adjudication with proper consideration of proportionate land division.
Subjects
- unilateral deemed conveyance
- proportionate land division
- architect's certificate
- competent authority
- remand
- high court
- writ petition
- housing society
- land entitlement
Judgment
Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7235 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7234 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2024
Gagan Solitaire CHS Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Chairman / Secretary, Samrat Empire ...Respondents
Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and
Ors.
________________
Mr. Joel D’souza i/b Mr. Suresh Kamble for Petitioner.
Ms. Nilam Vete for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 24 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 5 September 2023
passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Palghar and Competent
Authority (Competent Authority) issuing certificate of unilateral
Page No.1 of 4
24 August 2026
Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx
deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 3143 sq. mtrs in favour of the
Respondent No. 1-society.
2) I have heard Mr. D’souza, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, Ms. Vete the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 1 and Ms. Crasto, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State.
3) Perusal of the order of the Competent Authority would
indicate that the authority has relied upon sanctioned plan dated 15
September 2009 as well as the certificate of the architect. However,
certificate of the architect relied upon by Respondent No. 1 makes
reference to building plan dated 19 January 2005. Apart from the
difference in the building plans, the Competent Authority has not
undertaken the exercise of proportionate land division. The architect has
merely taken into consideration the builtup area utilized in construction
of Respondent No. 1-society. The total built up area is apparently found
as 3143 sq. mtrs. Therefore, the architect has blindly suggested that
Respondent No. 1-society shall be entitled to conveyance of land
admeasuring 3143 sq. mtrs. Both the plans of 2005 as well as 2009 would
indicate construction of multiple buildings in the layout. In that view of
the matter, it would be necessary for the architect to determine land
entitlement of Respondent No. 1-society corresponding to the builtup
area used in construction of its building. This exercise is not carried out
by the architect of Respondent No. 1. The Competent Authority has also
blindly relied upon erroneous certificate issued by the architect and has
directed conveyance of land admeasuring 3143 sq mtrs. In my view,
therefore, the proceedings are required to be remanded to the the
Page No.2 of 4
24 August 2026
Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx
Competent Authority for fresh adjudication. In such remanded
proceedings Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 1-society can rely upon
certificates of their respective architects for the purpose of guiding the
Competent Authority in making the proportionate land division.
4) Petition accordingly succeeds in part and I proceed to pass
the following order:-
(i) Order dated 5 September 2023 passed by the
Competent Authority is set aside. Consequently the
Registered deed of conveyance executed in favour of
Respondent No. 1-society as well as the relevant revenue
entry are also set aside.
(ii) Application No. 259/2022 is remanded to the
Competent Authority for being decided fresh.
(iii) In the remanded proceedings Petitioner and
Respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to produce before the
Competent Authority certificates of their respective
architects indicating the proportionate land division.
(iv) The Competent Authority shall keep in mind the
provisions of GR dated 22 June 2018 as well as various
judgments delivered by this Court while making the
proportionate land division.
Page No.3 of 4
24 August 2026
Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx
(v) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly
kept open.
(vi) Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 shall appear before
the Competent Authority on 2 September 2026 alongwith
copy of this order downloaded from website of this Court
and seek further directions for fixation of date(s) of hearing
in the remanded proceedings.
5) With the above directions Writ Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Nothing survives in the
Interim Application which is disposed of .
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 24 August 2026
Date: 27/08/2026 14:53:51
Checking your session…