SANJAY NARANGversusJOINT SUB-REGISTRAR CITY NO. 1 OF ASSURANCE MUMBAI

                                                                            J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC


           Digitally signed
           by PALLAVI
           MAHENDRA
PALLAVI    WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
           2026.08.17
           17:31:18                                                                           Pallavi
           +0530

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5225 OF 2024

                              1. Sanjay Narang
                                 of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
                                 residing at Georgina “C’’ Sherly Rajan Road,
                                 Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050.                    …Petitioners
                              2. Rachna Narang
                                 of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
                                 residing at Georgina “C” Sherly Rajan Road,
                                 Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050.
                                     Versus
                              1. Joint Sub-registrar City No.1 of
                                 Assurance Mumbai, Old Custom House,
                                 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort,
                                 Mumbai – 400 001.
                              2. The Collector and District Magistrate
                                 Mumbai City, Old Custom House,
                                 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort,
                                 Mumbai – 400 001.
                              3. The State of Maharashtra through the
                                 Government Pleader Original Side.
                              4. Soona Mahal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
                                Through its Secretary,
                                Having its registered office at 143,
                                Marine Drive, Mumbai 400 020.                     …Respondents


                              Mr Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Counsel, a/w Aurup Dasgupta, Revati
                                    Desai, Drshika Hemnani and Rishad Mehta i/b. Jhangiani
                                    Narula and Associates for the Petitioners.
                              Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State.
                              Mr Sachin Gawade, a/w Ramon Abrol (Chairman of Society) for
                                    the Respondent No.4.

                                                        CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                                ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.




                                                           Page 1 of 19
                                                 J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




                  RESERVED ON :           10th AUGUST 2026.
               PRONOUNCED ON :            17th AUGUST 2026.

Judgment (Per: Advait M. Sethna, J.) :-

1.    The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

2.    The Petitioners are primarily seeking directions to the
Respondent No.2 – Collector, to decide the Application of the
Petitioners dated 22nd August 2024 without insisting on a ‘No-
Objection’ from the Respondent No. 4 - Society, in accordance with
law and upon payment of the transfer fee with premium as
applicable, so as to enable Respondent No. 1 to register the
Consent Decree dated 16th December 2022.

3.    At this juncture, we may note that a statement was made on
behalf of the Petitioner before this Court recorded in its order
dated 25th February 2026, to the effect that the Petitioners shall be
seeking the relief specifically in terms of the above. Accordingly, it
is such relief, as now claimed by the Petitioners, that falls for
consideration of this Court.

4.    Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the
consent of the parties.

5.    The brief facts necessary for our adjudication are as under:-




                               Page 2 of 19
                                                J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




Factual Matrix:-

6.    The controversy revolves around the Suit Premises being a
shop referred to as ‘Pushp Milan’ admeasuring 186 sq. ft. area on
the ground floor of the building known as Soona Mahal Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd., situated at 143, Marine Drive,
Mumbai 400020., as also the Restaurant premises admeasuring
2530 sq. ft. carpet area which adjoins the shop on the ground floor
of the said building (‘Suit Premises’ for short), the details of which
are set out in the Petition. Shri. Khorshed Tehemton Udwadia and
Dr. Adi Nazir who claimed to be the owners of the Suit Premises,
were members of the Society i.e. Respondent No.4. They held five
fully paid-up shares of Rs.50/- each bearing Nos.7941 to 7945
under Share Certificate No.101, transferred to their names on 5 th
December 2014.

7.    Pursuant to the above, on 9th January 2018, Khorshed
Tehemton Udwadia entered into an agreement to sell the shop
premises to one Mars Enterprises & Hospitality Private Limited., a
company promoted by the Petitioners in which they had majority
shareholding. A Power of Attorney was executed by the Khorshed
Tehemton Udwadia in favour of a nominee of Mars Enterprises &
Hospitality Private Limited, to execute and register the Sale Deed
with respect to the said shop.

8.    The said Khorshed Tehemton Udwadia and Dr. Adi Nazir on
or about 26th March 2019 filed a Suit bearing No.621 of 2019 in
this Court against Mars Enterprises & Hospitality Private Limited
and the Petitioners, prior to the execution of the final Sale Deed.




                              Page 3 of 19
                                              J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




Such Suit was filed pursuant to the disputes and differences that
arose between the said parties. The said Society i.e. Respondent
No.4 was arrayed as a formal party in the said Suit. No relief was,
however, sought against the Society.

9.    During the pendency of the said Suit filed in this Court, a
Consent Terms dated 13th December 2022 was executed between
the Plaintiffs in the said Suit i.e. Khorshed Tehemton Udwadia &
Dr. Adi Nazir and the present Petitioners.

10.   This Court on 16th December 2022 passed an order
decreeing the said Suit in terms of the Consent Terms dated 13 th
December 2022.

11.   The said Consent Decree was thereafter forwarded for
adjudication to the Office of the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai by
the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court under letter
dated 28th February 2024 to determine the stamp duty payable on
the Consent Decree. This was considering that the decree was to
operate as a document of Conveyance of the Suit Premises. The
same was to be returned to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of
this Court upon adjudication. Accordingly, the Collector of Stamps
determined the stamp duty at Rs.91,58,300/- payable on the said
Consent Decree which was paid by the Petitioners on 24 th May
2024 (Ex. - F).

12.   Upon payment of the stamp duty by the Petitioners, the
Consent Decree dated 16th December 2022 as drawn up, was
sealed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master on 12 th June 2024. It




                             Page 4 of 19
                                                J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




was forwarded to the Respondent No.1, on 3 rd July 2024, for
registration of the said Consent Decree.

13.   Pursuant to the above, the Petitioners submitted the data
entry form of registration of the said Consent Decree to the office
of the Respondent No.1, making payment of the document
handling charges of Rs.1,640/- on 15th July 2024 and registration
charges of Rs.30,000/-, as applicable.

14.   The Respondent No.1 by a letter dated 16 th July 2024 issued
to the Petitioners stating that as the Suit Premises stood on the
land belonging to the Respondent No.2, a ‘No-Objection’ would
have to be issued by the said Respondent, prior to the registration
of the document/Consent Decree.

15.   The Petitioners, accordingly made an Application to the
Respondent No.2 on 22nd August 2024 for issuing the requisite ‘No-
Objection’ along with the necessary documents. The Petitioners
intimated their readiness and willingness to make payment of the
requisite transfer fee to the Respondent No.2 for providing such
‘No-Objection’.

16.   Vide letter dated 2nd September 2024 the Respondent No.2
called upon the Petitioners to submit certain documents like
Membership Certificate and ‘No-Objection’ letter from the Society,
copy of previous Transfer Deed, Application of income holder for
transfer, details regarding the flat. The Petitioners provided all the
necessary information to the Respondent No.2 except the ‘No-
Objection’ letter/Certificate from the said Society.




                              Page 5 of 19
                                              J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




17.   The Petitioners learnt that the said Society by a letter dated
26th September 2024 addressed to the Respondent No.2, inter alia
stated that the Suit Premises should not be transferred to the
Petitioners. In other words, an objection was raised by the Society
to issue its ‘No Objection’ to the Respondent No.2, in favour of the
Petitioners.

18.   Aggrieved by the actions of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
assailing the same the Petitioners filed this Writ Petition on 10 th
October 2024, before this Court.

19.   During pendency of the Petition, the Petitioners preferred an
Application under Section 22/23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 for declaration as deemed members of the
Society. Such Application was allowed by an order dated 21 st April
2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, A-
Division, Mumbai, which is challenged by the Society and is
pending adjudication.

20.   It is in such factual backdrop, we may now examine the case
of the parties.

Rival contentions:-

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:-

      In essence, Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioners has urged thus:-




                             Page 6 of 19
                                              J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




21.   Mr. Andhyarujina, at the very outset, would submit that the
decision of the Respondent No.2 - Collector to insist on a ‘No-
Objection’ from the Respondent No.4 - Society as a pre-requisite
for registration of the Consent Decree dated 16 th December 2022 is
arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.

22.   He would contend that the said Suit No. 621 of 2019 was
decreed in terms of the Consent Terms dated 13 th December 2022
vide an order dated 16th December 2022. In view thereof, the said
Consent Terms have attained finality, in the absence of any
challenge to the same.

23.   Mr. Andhyarujina would place reliance on the said Consent
Terms dated 13th December 2022, more particularly paragraphs 11
and 12 thereof. In this regard, he would submit that the said
Consent Terms were to operate as a conveyance by Khorshed
Tehemton Udwadia and Dr. Adi Nazir in favour of the Petitioners.
This would confer title on the Petitioners, which fact/position is
not disputed by any of the Respondents in the proceedings. The
Petitioners have already paid the stamp duty of Rs.91,58,300/- as
on 24th May 2024, evidenced by challan for such payment
exhibited to the Petition (Exh.-F). The Petitioners further
undertake to pay the transfer fees as may be prescribed for the
purposes of registration of the said Consent Decree, which is to act
as a conveyance to confer title of the Suit Premises, in favour of
the Petitioners.




                             Page 7 of 19
                                                 J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




24.   Mr. Andhyarujina has relied on the decision of this Court in
Aspi Chinoy & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1. This for the
reason that in the said case, the Collector directed the Sub-
Registrar that before registering the transaction in respect of
transfer of flats in certain buildings located at Nariman Point and
Cuffe Parade in Mumbai, a person who approaches the Sub-
Registrar for registering the transaction, should be asked to contact
the Collector’s Office first and obtain the necessary certificate from
the Collector, such stand of the Collector was not accepted by the
Court. In this context, he would submit that the Petition was
allowed and therefore, the said decision would apply in the given
case. He would then submit that the said decision was carried by a
Civil Appeal to the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Vs. Aspi Chinoy & Anr.2. The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal
of the State of Maharashtra and therefore, the same would
squarely apply to the facts before this Court.

25.   He would contend that pursuant to the decision in the case
of Aspi Chinoy & Anr. (supra) followed by its affirmation by the
Supreme Court (supra), there was an amendment to the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“MLRC” for short) in the
form of Section 37A. This is to contend that even under the said
provision also, there is no mandate and/or requirement whereby
the Respondent No.2 - Collector can insist on a ‘No-Objection’ from




1     2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2541

2     (2023) 20 SCC 402




                                 Page 8 of 19
                                                  J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




the Respondent No.4 - Society prior to registration of the Consent
Decree.

26.      Mr. Andhyarujina has then placed reliance on Section 17 of
the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “Registration Act”) to contend
that it mandates the registration of certain documents which
would include the said Consent Decree, as the same would operate
as Conveyance in respect of the title to the Suit Premises in favour
of the Petitioners.

27.      Mr. Andhyarujina has placed reliance on the Government
Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest
Department dated 7th July 2017 (“said GR” for short). Accordingly,
he would submit that the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay
such transfer fee in terms of the said GR so as to facilitate
registration of the said Consent Decree.

28.      Mr. Andhyarujina would contend that, considering the
settled position as set out above, it is totally arbitrary on the part of
Respondent No.2 - Collector to have taken such a stance of
insisting on a ‘No-Objection’ from the Society as a pre-requisite for
registration of the said Consent Decree.

29.      Mr. Andhyarujina would, thus, urge that the Petition be
allowed, more particularly, by directing the Respondent No.1 to
register the Consent Decree dated 16 th December 2022, without
the Respondent No. 2 – Collector, insisting on ‘No-Objection’ from
the Society. Accordingly, the Petition be made absolute in the above
terms.




                               Page 9 of 19
                                               J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3:-

30.   Mr. Takke, learned AGP for the said Respondents has
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners. He
would submit that Section 37A of the MLRC stipulates restrictions
on sale, transfer, redevelopment, change of use, etc., in relation to
Government land and nazul land. In view thereof, there are inbuilt
restrictions on the transfer/sale of such lands prescribed under the
said statutory provisions which ought to be followed by the
Respondent No.2 - Collector.

31.   Mr. Takke placed due reliance on Section 23 of the
Registration Act. This to contend that as the Consent Decree was
not submitted within the prescribed timeline of 4 months, the
mandate of the said provision was not complied with by the
Petitioners.

32.   Mr Takke would urge that the Respondents have, therefore,
acted in accordance with law at all times. There is no arbitrariness
and/or unreasonableness in their actions, as alleged by the
Petitioners.

33.   Mr. Sachin Gawade on behalf of the Respondent No.4-
Society has also opposed the Petition. He has contended that there
is a serious encroachment on the Suit Premises. In view thereof,
the Society could not have issued the ‘No-Objection’ in favour of
the Petitioners in the given facts and circumstances. Besides this,
he has also submitted that certain crucial facts were not disclosed
in the Petition. This being that the Respondent No.2 not being a




                             Page 10 of 19
                                               J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




party to the eviction suit and the legal heirs of Dr. Adi Nazir owned
only 50% of the right, title and interest in the shares in the Suit
Premises.

34.   Mr. Ramon Abrol, the Chairman of the Respondent No. 4 -
Society, with the Court’s permission also addressed the Court. He
states that the objection of the Respondent No.4 – Society, in not
issuing the ‘No-Objection’, was due to the insistence of the
Respondent No.2 to issue the same in favour of the Petitioners. The
Society’s primary concern and anxiety stems from the fact that the
Respondent No.2 ought not to make the Society responsible and/or
liable in any manner for non-issuance of such ‘No-Objection’ in
favour of the Petitioners.

Analysis:-

35.   The core issue that confronts us in the proceedings revolves
around the question of authority, if any, of the Respondent No.2, to
insist on a ‘No-Objection’ from the Respondent No.4 - Society, as a
pre-condition for registration of the Consent Decree dated 16 th
December 2022.

36.   With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we
have perused the record including the pleadings filed in the
proceedings. We have taken due note of the Affidavit-in-Reply filed
on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 as also the Additional
Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Petitioners
have filed Rejoinder dated 24th June 2024, which is duly noted. In




                             Page 11 of 19
                                                    J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




order to avoid prolixity, we have not dealt with each of the said
pleadings, separately.

37.    At the outset, to place the dispute/issue in perspective, it is
apposite in the given facts, to refer to the Consent Terms dated 13 th
December 2022, more particularly, clauses 3, 11 and 12 thereof,
which read thus:-

      “(3) The Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 do hereby agree, confirm
           and declare that all rights acquired by the Defendant
           No.1 under the Agreement to Sell dated 9th January
           2018 have been transferred by it to the Defendant Nos.2
           and 3 and the consideration paid reimbursed by them to
           Defendant No.1 and that Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in
           lawful and valid possession of the Flower Shop Premises
           and entitled to conveyance thereof.

      (11) By consent, it is ordered and decreed that these Consent
           Terms shall operate as a Conveyance by Plaintiff Nos.1
           and 2 in favor of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of
           the Suit Property and the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 shall
           be in possession thereof as Owners from the date of
           execution of these Consent Terms.

      (12) It is agreed that the Stamp Duty payable on these
           Consent Terms and the Decree to be drawn-up in
           pursuance hereof, registration fees for registration of the
           Decree, transfer fees, if any, charged by the Defendant
           No.6 Society and charges levied by the Collector, if any,
           and all other outgoings whatsoever in respect of or
           relating to the Suit Property or any part thereof shall be
           borne and paid entirely by Defendant Nos.2 and 3.
           Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 shall not be liable to and shall not
           bear or pay any Stamp Duty or Registration fees or
           society transfer charges payable in respect of such
           transfer of the Suit Property or any part thereof nor be
           liable or bear any other charges whatsoever whether to
           Defendants Nos.2 and 3 or to the Society or to any
           Court or any other party or authority for such transfer of
           the Share or the Suit Property or any part thereof.”




                                Page 12 of 19
                                               J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




      The above clauses in the Consent Terms thus categorically
provide that:- (a) the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are in lawful and valid
possession of the Suit Premises and are entitled to conveyance
thereof; (b) the Consent Terms shall operate as a conveyance by
Khorshed Tehemton Udwadia and Dr. Adi Nazir in favour of the
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as owners of the Suit Premises and in
possession thereof, from the date of the execution of the said
Consent Terms.

38.   The record bears out that it is nowhere controverted that the
Consent Terms dated 13th December 2022 were to operate as a
Document/Deed of Conveyance of title in respect of the Suit
Premises, in favour of the Petitioners, by Khorshed Tehemton
Udwadia and Dr. Adi Nazir (erstwhile owners).

39.   We have noted Mr. Andhyarujina’s contention that the
Society being Original Defendant No.6 in the said Suit was joined
as a formal party with no relief claimed against it. The Consent
Terms specifically provided that the said Suit was to be disposed of
against the Society in light of the Consent Terms which was duly
confirmed by the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
16th December 2022. Pertinent it is to note that neither the subject
Consent Terms nor this Court’s order dated 16 th December 2022
and/or the Consent Decree in terms of the said Order, have been
assailed by any of the Respondents and has therefore the same has
attained finality.




                             Page 13 of 19
                                               J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




40.   In our considered view, the Revenue Authorities viz. the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have acted in furtherance of and
in deference to such Decree of this Court and not create any
obstacles and/or road blocks in the implementation thereof. The
Respondent No. 2 – Collector should have notified the transfer fee
as prescribed to enable registration of the Consent Decree.
However, he chose to tread on a different path by insisting on ‘No
Objection’ from the Society, which the law did not mandate.

41.   We would advert to the submission of Mr. Takke on Section
37A of the MLRC. A careful perusal of Section 37A along with the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, clearly reflects that it relates to
Government land and restrictions of transactions thereon. We are
therefore unable to accept his submissions, in support of actions of
Respondent No.2 in the given case.

42.   Despite elaborate arguments by the learned counsel for the
Respondents, including that of Mr. Takke for the Respondent Nos.1
to 3, they have not been able to demonstrate any statutory
provision, rule/regulation/notification and/or otherwise which
would mandate the insistence by the Respondent No.2 for issuance
of such ‘No-Objection’ by the Society, as a precursor to the
registration of the said Consent Decree. In view thereof, the stance
of the Respondents to raise such objection in execution of the
Consent Decree, would be nothing short of an obstructionist
approach in the execution/implementation of a legally binding
decree, which we cannot countenance.




                             Page 14 of 19
                                                J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




43.   We may now advert to the submission of Mr. Takke in the
context of Section 23 of the Registration Act, which prescribes the
time limit of 4 months of presenting a Decree or Order before the
proper officer, which was not followed. However, the chronology of
the events reveal that upon payment of stamp duty by the
Petitioners the final Decree was drawn up and sealed by the
Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court on 12 th June 2024.
Thereafter, it was forwarded to the Respondent No.1 for
registration on 3rd July 2024, pursuant to which the Respondent
No.1 by a letter dated 16th July 2024 called upon the Petitioners to
furnish a ‘No-Objection’ from the Respondent No.2, prior to
registration of the said Consent Decree. Accordingly, we find
substance in the submission of Mr. Andhyarujina that the timelines
prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act have been
complied with. In view thereof, the submission of Mr. Takke, in this
regard, ‘cuts no ice’ and does not take the case of Respondents any
further.

44.   We are in agreement with the submission canvassed by Mr.
Andhyarujina to the extent of his reliance on the decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Aspi Chinoy & Anr v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors (supra). This Court, in allowing the said
Petition has observed that the State Government has no right to
ask such petitioner/party to seek its approval before entering into
any transaction with regard to transfer of flat even if it is in a
building constructed on the Collector’s land.




                             Page 15 of 19
                                                J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




45.   We find that the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal
preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the said decision,
inter alia, observing that these were not cases where the land was
allotted to a Co-operative Society by the Government. In fact, the
land in those cases were leased to the builder and after ownership
of flats were transferred to private individuals pursuant to which a
society of flat owners was formed in which case, no prior
consent/permission of the Collector was required. In such facts and
circumstances, the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal preferred by
the State of Maharashtra also declined to interfere with the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In our considered
view, the reasoning/ratio in the said decisions, would support the
case of the present Petitioners, before this Court.

46.   We may note that Section 17 of the Registration Act
mandates registration of certain documents, which would in the
given facts include the said Consent Decree to operate as a
Document/Deed of Conveyance in respect of the title to the Suit
Premises, in favour of the Petitioners. Moreover, the Respondents
have not made out any case so as to exclude the applicability of
Section 17 in the given factual matrix.

47.   We find substance in the submission of the Petitioners’
Senior Counsel in regard to reliance on the GR dated 7 th July 2017
(supra). This for the reason that it provides for regularizing certain
transactions of sale/gift/donation by giving the District Collector
the authority to grant ex-post facto approval, by charging the
prescribed transfer fees to such transaction of transfer. In view




                             Page 16 of 19
                                                          J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




thereof, as the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the
prescribed transfer fees, along with the premium if any, as the law
would provide. We, therefore, see no reason and/or justification
for the Respondent No.2 – Collector, to refuse to accept such
transfer fee along with the premium, if applicable, in the given
case.

48.      Mr.    Andhyarujina       has    placed     reliance      upon   various
judgments in support of his submissions and the same have been
duly noted :-

        (i)     Sachidanand Vidya Shankar v. Vidya Narsinha
                Bharati3;
        (ii)    Mathura Prasad Phool Chand v. Parmanand Thakur
                Das4;
        (iii)   Deity Shri Shanimahatama Swamy v. Sr. C.
                Gangalah5;
        (iv)    Salkia Businessmen’s Association v. Howrah
                Municipal Corporation6;
        (v)     Ajanta LLP v. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha
                d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. & Anr.7;
        (vi)    The Zoroastrian Radih Society and 5 Ors. v.
                Behramshah Shroff Building No.1 (Yazad) Co-
                operative Housing Society Ltd.8;
        (vii)   Govind Waman Shanbhag v. Murlidhar Shrinivas
                Shanbhag9;



3        AIR 1927 PC 57
4        1959 SCC OnLine MP 38
5        AIR 1994 Kar 303
6        (2001) 6 SCC 688
7        Civil Appeal No.1052 of 2022 decided on 4 February 2022
8        2026:BHC-OS-4262 decided on 12 February 2026
9        1952 SCC OnLine Bom 122




                                    Page 17 of 19
                                                          J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




      (viii)   Basangouda Giriyeppagouda Patil v. Basalingappa
               Mallangouda Patil10;
      (ix)     Bhima Rama Jadhav v. Abdul Rahid11;
      (x)      The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Kamal R.
               Bulchandani & Anr.12.

       The reasoning/ratio of these decisions is reflected in our
analysis above, to the extent it is necessary, for determining the
issue/s in the proceedings.

49.    We have noted the stand taken by Mr. Ramon Abrol, the
Chairman of Respondent No.4. Accordingly, for the reasons set out
above and in the interest of justice, we may clarify that Respondent
No.4 would not be held responsible and/or liable by the Collector-
Respondent No.2 qua the requirement of ‘No Objection’, from the
Society. On the aspect of encroachment on the Suit Premises as
raised before the Court, by the Society - Respondent No.4, we do
not find it necessary, at this stage, to delve into the merits of the
same. However, we further clarify that such issues, if raised in an
appropriate proceeding, the same can be decided in accordance
with law.

50.    In light of the above, we are inclined to Allow the Petition.
Rule is made absolute in terms of the following:-
       Accordingly, we direct the Respondent No.2 – Collector,
      to decide the Application of the Petitioners dated 22nd
      August 2024, without insisting on a No Objection from
      the Respondent No. 4 - Society, in accordance with law
      and upon payment of the transfer fee with premium as
10     AIR 1936 Bom 301
11     AIR 1968 Mys 184
12     Review Petition (L) No. 27315 of 2024 dated 13th July, 2026




                                   Page 18 of 19
                                                 J-WP-5225-2024.(OS).DOC




         applicable, so as to enable the Respondent No. 1 to
         register the said Consent Decree dated 16 th December
         2022.
51.      The Petition is Disposed of in the above terms. No order as to
costs.

52.      All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
judgment.




(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)                           (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                       {




                               Page 19 of 19