Bombay High Court
SHRI DATTARAM NARAYAN KENI AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that no interference with the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance is warranted despite the pending claim.
Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the original landowner, challenged an order dated 21 May 2014 that issued a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of 2,816.17 sq.m. of land in favour of a cooperative society (Respondent No.2). They argued that pending receivables from a developer (Respondent No.3) should prevent the conveyance and that the society should not be granted title until their claim is resolved. The High Court examined whether the pendency of a separate monetary claim could justify delaying the conveyance order. The Court held that the existence of a pending claim does not warrant interference with the competent authority's order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court reserving the petitioners' right to initiate separate proceedings against Respondent No.3 for recovery of dues.
Issues considered
- Whether a pending claim for receivables by the heirs against a developer can justify setting aside a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance issued to a cooperative society.
Subjects
- unilateral deemed conveyance
- cooperative society
- heirs
- land conveyance
- pending claim
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
Sonali Mane 27-WP-7416-2016.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7416 OF 2016
Shri Dattaram Narayan Keni And Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Omkar Khaiyam Shaikh a/w Mr. Sahil Salvi for Petitioners.
Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent -State.
Mr. D. R. Kawale, for Respondent No.4-BMC.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 6 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Petition challenges Order dated 21 May 2014 passed by
the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society (II), Eastern
Suburbs, Mumbai issuing certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in
respect of land admeasuring 2,816.17 sq.mtrs. in favour of Respondent
No.2-Society.
2) I have heard Mr. Shaikh, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioners and have considered the submissions canvassed by him.
3) Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of the original
Digitally
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
landowner, who had executed Development Agreement in favour of
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2026.10.08
11:15:04
+0530
___Page No.1 of 2___
6 October, 2026
Sonali Mane 27-WP-7416-2016.docx
Respondent No.3. It is the contention of the Petitioners that there are
certain receivables due from Respondent No.3. If that is the case,
Petitioners would be free to institute appropriate proceedings against
Respondent No.3 for recovery of amounts due. Mere pendency of claim
of landowners against a developer cannot be a reason for indefinitely
delaying the conveyance of land and building in favour of the society.
4) In my view, therefore, no interference is warranted in the
impugned order passed by the Competent Authority. Reserving the
liberty for the Petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings against
Respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 2___
6 October, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.