MOMIN ZULFIKAR KASAMversusAPURVA LOK RACHANA CO OP HSG SOC LTD AND ORS

                                                               wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


                   Shabnoor
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHABNOOR                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
AYUB
PATHAN

Digitally signed
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.9810 OF 2025
by SHABNOOR
AYUB PATHAN
Date: 2026.03.24
11:47:47 +0530     Momin Zulfikar Kasam
                   Aged : 57 yeas, Occu: Business,
                   Having address at 1901 Fatemid Co-op. Hsg.
                   Society Ltd., Jogeshwari (West),
                   Mumbai – 400 102                                       … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                   1.   Apurva Lok Rachana Cooperative
                        Housing Society Ltd.
                        Amar Nagar, Guru Gobind Singh Marg,
                        Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 082.
                   2.   M/s. Hoechst India Limited.
                        CTS No.117-B, L & T Business Park,
                        Saki Vihar Road, Powai,
                        Mumbai – 400 072.
                   3.   M/s. Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd.
                        14, Vishal Shopping Centre,
                        Sir M. V. Road, Andheri (East),
                        Mumbai – 400 069.
                   4.   M/s. Sanofi India Limited and Sanofi
                        Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.,
                        CTS No.117-B, L & T Business Park,
                        Saki Vihar Road, Powai,
                        Mumbai – 400 072.
                   5.   Akash Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing Society
                        Ltd., Lok Rachana Complex, Amar Nagar,
                        Nahur Village, Mulund (West),
                        Mumbai – 400 082.
                   6.   Ambar Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing Society
                        Ltd., Lok Rachana Complex, Amar Nagar,
                        Nahur Village, Mulund (West),
                        Mumbai – 400 082.



                                                      1
                                           wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc



7.   Shrushti Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
     Society Ltd., Lok Rachana Complex,
     Amar Nagar, Nahur Village,
8.   Vasundhara Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
     Society Ltd., Lok Rachana Complex,
     Amar Nagar, Nahur Village,
     Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 082.
9.   Shriram Tower CHS Ltd.,
     Lok Rachana Complex, Amar Nagar, Nahur
     Village, Mulund (West),
     Mumbai – 400 082.
10. Pooja Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
    Lok Rachana Complex, Amar Nagar, Nahur
    Village, Mulund (West),
    Mumbai – 400 082.
11. Competent Authority & District Deputy
    Registrar, Co-operative Societies (2), East
    Suburban, Mumbai, Room No.201, Konkan
    Bhavan, CBD Belapur,
    Navi Mumbai – 400614.                             … Respondents

                              WITH
                  WRIT PETITION NO.3189 OF 2025

Momin Zulfikar Kasam                                  … Petitioner

           V/s.

1.   Vasundhara Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
     Society Ltd.
2.   Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd.
3.   Hoechst India Limited
4.   Alex Simon Remedies
5.   Vincent Simon Remedies
6.   M/s. Mihir Developers




                                2
                                          wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


7.   Estate India Limited
8.   Shriram Tower CHS Ltd.
9.   Ismael Ibrahim Patel
10. Hecst India Ltd.
11. Hector India Ltd
12. Rajaram Sakharam Ohol
13. Pooja Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
14. Apurva Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.,
15. Shreyas Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
16. Akash Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
17. Ambar Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
18. Shrushti Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
19. Sanofi India Limited
20. The Competent Authority & District
    Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2)      … Respondents

                              WITH
                  WRIT PETITION NO.6379 OF 2025

Momin Zulfikar Kasam                                 … Petitioner

           V/s.

1.   Ambar Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
     Society Ltd.
2.   Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd.
3.   Hoechst India Limited
4.   Alex Simon Remedies
5.   Vincent Simon Remedies


                                3
                                          wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc



6.   Mihir Developers
7.   Estate India Limited
8.   Shriram Tower CHS Ltd.
9.   Ismael Ibrahim Patel
10. Hecst India Ltd.
11. Hector India Ltd
12. Rajaram Sakharam Ohol
13. Pooja Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
14. Apurva Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.,
15. Shreyas Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
16. Akash Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
17. Vasundhara Lok Rachana Co-op.
    Housing Society Ltd.
18. Shrushti Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
19. Sanofi India Limited
20. The Competent Authority & District Deputy
    Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2)             … Respondents

                              WITH
                  WRIT PETITION NO.4068 OF 2025

Momin Zulfikar Kasam                                 … Petitioner

           V/s.

1.   Akash Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
     Society Ltd.
2.   Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd.
3.   Hoechst India Limited




                                4
                                          wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


4.   Alex Simon Remedies
5.   Vincent Simon Remedies
6.   Mihir Developers
7.   Estate India Limited
8.   Shriram Tower CHS Ltd.
9.   Ismael Ibrahim Patel
10. Hecst India Ltd.
11. Hector India Ltd
12. Rajaram Sakharam Ohol
13. Pooja Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
14. Apurva Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.,
15. Shreyas Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
16. Ambar Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
17. Vasundhara Lok Rachana Co-op.
    Housing Society Ltd.
18. Shrushti Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
19. Sanofi India Limited
20. The Competent Authority & District Deputy
    Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2)             … Respondents

                              WITH
                  WRIT PETITION NO.6713 OF 2025

Momin Zulfikar Kasam                                 … Petitioner

           V/s.

1.   Shreeram Tower Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
2.   Hoechst India Limited




                                5
                                           wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


3.   Hector India Ltd
4.   Lok Housing & Construction Ltd.
5.   Shriram Construction
6.   The Competent Authority & District
     Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2)      … Respondents

                              WITH
                  WRIT PETITION NO.9164 OF 2025

Momin Zulfikar Kasam                                  … Petitioner

           V/s.

1.   Shrushti Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
     Society Ltd.
2.   Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd.
3.   Hoechst India Limited
4.   Alex Simon Remedies
5.   Vincent Simon Remedies
6.   Mihir Developers
7.   Estate India Limited
8.   Shriram Tower CHS Ltd.
9.   Ismael Ibrahim Patel
10. Hecst India Ltd.
11. Hector India Ltd
12. Rajaram Sakharam Ohol
13. Pooja Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
14. Apurva Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.,
15. Shreyas Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
16. Ambar Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.



                                 6
                                          wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


17. Vasundhara Lok Rachana Co-op.
    Housing Society Ltd.
18. Akash Lok Rachana Co-op. Housing
    Society Ltd.
19. Sanofi India Limited
20. The Competent Authority & District Deputy
    Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2)             … Respondents

Mr. Pradeep Thorat with Ms. Aditi Naikare, Mr. Aniesh
Jadhav, Ms. Priyanka Bhoite for the petitioner in all the
writ petitions.
Mr. Vishhal Saxxenaa for the respondent No.1 in
WP/9810/2025.
Mr. Amrut Joshi i/by Mr. Vaibhav A. Singh for the
respondent No. 1 in WP/6379/2025.
Mr. Aadil Parshurampuria with Mr. Santosh More, Ms.
Sonal Thorat for respondent No. 1 in WP/3189/2025,
WP/9164/2025 & WP/4068/2025 and respondent Nos.16
to 18 in WP/6379/2025.
Ms. Nikita Vardhan with Ms. Srushtee Panhale i/by Kanga
& Co. for the respondent No.4 in WP/9810/2025,
respondent No. 2 in WP/6713/2025 and respondent No.
19 in WP/3189/2025, WP/6379/2025, WP/4068/2025 &
WP/9164/2025.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the respondent-State in
WP/9810/2025.
Mrs. Mamta Srivastava, AGP for the respondent-State in
WP/3189/2025.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for the respondent-State in
WP/6379/2025.
Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for the respondent-State in
WP/4068/2025.
Mrs. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the respondent-State in
WP/6713/2025.
Mr. A. A. Alaspure, AGP for the respondent-State in
WP/9164/2025.


                               7
                                            wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


                    CORAM             : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                    RESERVED ON       : MARCH 10, 2026

                    RESERVED ON       : MARCH 24, 2026
JUDGMENT:

1.    Since all the present petitions arise from a common
judgment and order dated 30 October 2024 passed by the
Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies (2), East Suburban, Mumbai, whereby a Certificate of
Unilateral Deemed Conveyance has been granted in favour of
respondent No.1, the same are being disposed of by this common
judgment. The issues involved in all the petitions are substantially
identical, save and except the extent of area sought to be conveyed
in favour of respondent No.1 Society. For the sake of convenience,
the facts in Writ Petition No.9810 of 2025 are being referred to as
the lead case.

2.    The facts giving rise to the present petitions, as pleaded by
the petitioner, are that respondent No.2, M/s Hoechst India
Limited, was the owner of land admeasuring 36,325 sq. mtrs.,
bearing Survey Nos. 82 (part) and 88 (part), corresponding to Old
CTS No.470 (part), 471 to 477, 477/1, 468/1 to 468/10, 465
(part) and 531 (part), and New CTS Nos.468/A to 468/E, situated
at Village Nahur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District,
hereinafter referred to as the larger land. It is stated that
respondent No.2 constructed six buildings, namely AB, CD, EF, G,
HM and K, on a portion of the said larger land admeasuring
6323.97 sq. mtrs. It is further stated that respondent No.2, by an




                                 8
                                              wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


Agreement dated 29 November 1990, appointed respondent No.3,
M/s Lok Housing and Construction Ltd., as developer for the
purpose of developing the larger land by utilizing the balance
permissible   FSI.   In    pursuance   thereof,     respondent          No.3
constructed four buildings, being Building Nos.1 to 4, on a portion
of the larger land. It is further the case of the petitioner that
respondent No.3 also constructed Building No.5 comprising stilt
plus four upper floors, which was thereafter handed over to
respondent No.2. It is stated that respondent No.2, by an
Agreement dated 28 January 1999, agreed to sell Building No.5 to
respondent No.10, Pooja Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. It is
further   stated   that   respondent   No.3    could      not     complete
construction of Building No.6 and consequently the said building
was surrendered to respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2,
by an Agreement dated 3 March 2000, granted development rights
in respect of Building No.6 to M/s Shree Ram Constructions. The
petitioner further states that respondent No.3 sold flats and units
in Building Nos.1 to 4 to various purchasers, who thereafter
formed separate co-operative housing societies. respondent No.1 is
stated to be one such society, formed by purchasers of flats in
Building No.C4 constructed by respondent No.3. It is the case of
the petitioner that respondent No.2, now known as Sanofi India
Ltd., executed a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 13 April
2023, whereby land admeasuring 27,605.51 sq. mtrs. out of the
larger land came to be conveyed on an “as is where is” basis.

3.   The petitioner states that respondent No.1, on 5 March
2024, filed Application No.42 of 2024 before respondent No.11,



                                  9
                                           wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


namely the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies (2), East Suburban, Mumbai, under Section 11
of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, seeking issuance
of a Certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance in respect of
land admeasuring 6096 sq. mtrs., together with proportionate
rights in the recreational ground area from the larger land. It is
stated that the building of respondent No.1 consists of a single
wing comprising ground plus seven upper floors, and that the
society came to be registered on 23 July 2001. The petitioner
further states that he filed a reply dated 13 August 2024 opposing
Application No.42 of 2024 and disputing the entitlement of
respondent No.1. It is contended that Building No.C4 forms an
integral part of Building Nos.C1, C2 and C3, and constitutes only
one wing of Building No.3, and therefore cannot be conveyed
independently. It is further contended that respondent No.1 has
failed to disclose the exact area underlying Wing C4. According to
the petitioner, respondent No.1 is not entitled to claim land
admeasuring 5309.97 sq. mtrs., which represents the built-up area
of Wings C1, C2, C3 and C4 taken together. It is further contended
that the Agreement for Sale annexed to the application is merely
an agreement for resale and cannot be treated as an agreement
executed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of
Flats Act. It is stated that during inspection, a copy of an
Agreement dated 29 July 1990 executed by respondent No.3 in
favour of Dr. Pravin B. Kharwadkar in respect of Flat No.603 in
Wing C4 was produced, which records that the FSI consumed in
Building C4 has no correlation with the plot area. It is further




                                10
                                              wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


recorded therein that conveyance was contemplated in favour of a
single society to be formed for all buildings. It is therefore
contended that land admeasuring 5309.97 sq. mtrs. is not capable
of being conveyed to any one society. It is also contended that
respondent No.1 is registered in respect of Buildings C3 and C4,
and hence cannot seek conveyance of Building C4 independently.
It is lastly contended that the area claimed for conveyance is
unsupported by any architect’s certificate.

4.    The petitioner states that by the impugned order dated 30
October 2024, respondent No.11 has allowed Application No.42 of
2024 and granted a Certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance
in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of land admeasuring
2156.38 sq. mtrs. out of the net plot area, together with undivided
rights in land admeasuring 380.54 sq. mtrs. out of the recreational
ground area, aggregating to a total of 2536.92 sq. mtrs. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has instituted the
present petitions.

5.    Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner,
submits that respondent No.11 has failed to consider that the
application for deemed conveyance preferred by respondent No.1
Society was not maintainable in law. It is his contention that
respondent No.1 Society has been constituted by purchasers of
flats in Wings C3 and C4 of Building No.3, whereas the relief
sought in the application is restricted only to the land beneath
Wing C4. According to him, such a claim is inherently inconsistent
with the constitution of the society itself. It is further submitted
that the Competent Authority has not properly appreciated that



                                 11
                                               wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


Building No.3 comprises Wings C1, C2, C3 and C4 forming one
composite structure, and therefore a separate conveyance in
respect of only one wing thereof is impermissible. On this ground,
it is urged that the application filed by respondent No.1 ought to
have been rejected at the threshold. The learned Advocate further
submits that respondent No.11 has failed to consider that there
was no cogent material on record to justify the conclusion that
respondent No.1 Society was entitled to deemed conveyance in
respect of land admeasuring 2156.38 sq. mtrs. out of the net plot
area, together with undivided rights in the recreational ground
area admeasuring 380.54 sq. mtrs. It is contended that the
determination of such area is unsupported by any reliable basis. It
is further submitted that respondent No.11 has erred in recording
a finding that the Applicant Society and Opponent No.5 Society
had furnished lists of members along with details of the built-up
area of their respective flats, on the basis of which the total built-
up area was computed as 57,459.08 sq. mtrs. According to the
learned Advocate, the said lists lack authenticity and do not
possess any evidentiary value, and therefore could not have been
relied upon by the Competent Authority.

6.    It is also contended that respondent No.11 has committed a
further   error   in   concluding,     on    the   strength       of     such
unauthenticated    material,   that    the   pro-rata      built-up      area
attributable to the Applicant Society is 40.61% and that of
respondent No.5 Society is 59.39%. It is submitted that such
determination, being founded on unreliable material, could not
have formed the basis for grant of the impugned deemed



                                  12
                                               wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


conveyance.

7.    It is submitted by Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, that the grant of conveyance in favour of respondent
No.1 in each of the present petitions would result in encroachment
upon the areas earmarked for other co-operative housing societies
within the same layout. It is contended that if the areas granted
under the impugned orders are considered cumulatively in respect
of all such societies, the same would, in effect, encroach upon and
prejudice the area claimed by the petitioner’s society. On this basis,
it is urged that the applications for deemed conveyance filed by the
respective societies are liable to be rejected in their entirety.

8.    Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent
No.1 in each petition submits that respondent No.3, namely M/s
Hoechst India Limited, was the owner of land admeasuring 36,325
sq. mtrs., bearing Survey Nos. 82 (part) and 88 (part), situated at
Village   Nahur,    Taluka    Kurla,    Mumbai     Suburban         District,
hereinafter referred to as the larger land. It is submitted that
respondent No.3 had constructed six buildings, namely Wings AD,
CD, EF, G, HM and K, on a portion of the larger land admeasuring
6323.97 sq. mtrs. It is further submitted that by an Agreement
dated 29 November 1990, respondent No.3 appointed respondent
No.2, M/s Lok Housing and Construction Limited, as the developer
of the larger land. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 developed
the project known as “Lok Rachna”, constructed five buildings
thereon, and sold flats in the said buildings to various purchasers.
It is submitted that, in so far as the present petition is concerned,
respondent No.2 sold flats in Building No.3, comprising 63 flats in



                                   13
                                            wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


Wings C1 and C2, to different purchasers.

9.   The learned Advocates have invited attention to certain
clauses of the Agreement. Recital Third records that the flats were
sold with the intention that the purchasers would form a co-
operative housing society, in whose favour conveyance of the plot
would ultimately be executed. Clause 23 provides that upon
completion of construction, the developer shall form a society and
may either form separate societies for individual buildings or a
common society for portions of the plot, and thereafter execute
conveyance in favour of such society or societies. Clause 28
stipulates that there shall be no subdivision of the plot, and
restricts encroachment upon recreational grounds or spaces
reserved for other structures forming part of the Hoechst Complex,
while at the same time preserving rights of ingress and egress for
occupants of the complex. Clause 30 further provides that the
developer may form separate societies for individual buildings or a
common society for more than one building, and shall execute
conveyance accordingly in favour of such society or societies. It is
further submitted that on or about 13 April 2023, the petitioner
obtained a Deed of Conveyance in respect of the larger land for a
consideration of Rs.1 Crore. Reference is made to the recitals
therein. Recital (1) records sanction of plans by the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai for various buildings and
recreational areas. Recital (Q) records that the larger land has
been developed and comprises several buildings. Recital (R) sets
out particulars of the buildings constructed along with the number
of flats therein. Recital (R)(g) specifically records that Building



                                 14
                                            wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


Nos.1 to 4 forming part of the “Lok Rachna” project have been
constructed and that the units therein have been sold to various
purchasers, and further records that the land beneath such
buildings, along with proportionate rights in common areas, is
required to be conveyed to the apex society or to individual
societies, which obligation remains unfulfilled. Recital (BB)
records that the petitioner has agreed to accept conveyance of the
larger land on an “as is where is” basis, subject to rights already
created in favour of third parties, and subject to the obligation of
executing conveyance in favour of the respective societies. The
operative clause reiterates the said obligation. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has placed on record only the
operative portion of the Deed of Conveyance and has not produced
the annexures forming part thereof. It is pointed out that one such
annexure is an Architect’s Certificate dated 23 August 2022, which
has also been relied upon by respondent No.1 while seeking
deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra
Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The said certificate sets out building-
wise built-up area and the FSI consumed, and records that
respondent No.1 Society has a built-up area of 5687.17 sq. mtrs.,
corresponding to a proportionate share of 20.73% in the overall
layout.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

10.   I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions
and perused the material placed on record. The present petitions
arise from a common order passed by the Competent Authority
under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963.



                                 15
                                             wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


Because the issue is common, and because the competing claims
are interlinked, the petitions have been heard together and are
being decided by this common judgment.

11.   The first submission of the petitioner is that the application
for deemed conveyance itself was not maintainable. Learned
counsel says that respondent No.1 Society is formed by flat
purchasers of Wings C3 and C4 of Building No.3. Still, the
application is filed only for land under Wing C4. According to him,
this itself shows inconsistency. He further says that Building No.3 is
one single structure having Wings C1, C2, C3 and C4, and
therefore one wing cannot be separated and given conveyance. At
first glance, this argument appears reasonable. But when the
record is carefully seen, it does not fully support such a strict
position. The project was not made in one single step. It was
developed gradually. The original owner entered into development
agreements. Different buildings came up at different times.
Different purchasers came in. Separate societies were also formed
building wise or wing wise. Because of this, rights have become
layered and somewhat complex. Therefore, one cannot decide the
issue only by saying that one building has many wings. The matter
has to be seen with reference to agreements, sanctioned plans,
layout, built up area, and rights already created in favour of
different persons.

12.   The petitioners have strongly argued that no conveyance can
be granted for only one wing out of a larger building. This
argument is put as if it is a fixed rule. But such a rule cannot be
accepted in that absolute way. Whether one wing can be separately



                                 16
                                            wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


conveyed depends on facts of each case. One has to see how the
project was planned, how flats were sold, what rights were kept in
agreements, and how the area was divided in reality. The
Competent Authority therefore could not reject the application
only because it related to Wing C4. The authority was required to
examine whether the society has some clear share in the larger
layout. From the record, it appears that the society was not asking
for entire land. It was asking only for proportionate share
connected with its building and common areas. So the real issue
was not only whether application is maintainable. The real issue
was what exact portion can be given. That is more a question of
measurement than a pure question of law.

13.   The petitioners have then argued that there was no proper
material before the Competent Authority to fix the area of 2156.38
sq. mtrs. and 380.54 sq. mtrs. This point needs careful
consideration. In matters of deemed conveyance, the authority
cannot act casually. Area must come from some record. At the
same time, it is also true that the Competent Authority is not like a
full civil court conducting detailed trial. It works on documents
placed before it. These include agreements, plans, architect reports
and other records. If these documents broadly show that a society
is entitled, the authority can grant conveyance. But if the exact
area itself becomes seriously disputed, and cannot be decided
without deeper evidence, then such dispute may go beyond this
limited process.

14.   The petitioners have further attacked the reliance placed on
the list of members and built up area given by societies. It is



                                 17
                                               wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


contended that such list has no authenticity. However, at the same
time, the record shows that the authority did not rely only on that
list. It also considered agreements, the conveyance obtained by the
petitioner, and the architect’s certificate. Therefore, it is not correct
to say that the entire order is based only on one weak document.
Even then, the dispute raised by the petitioners shows that the
exact area is still not fully certain and remains under contest.

15.   The petitioners have also challenged the pro rata calculation
of 40.61 percent and 59.39 percent. According to them, since the
base data itself is doubtful, the percentage cannot be accepted.
When many societies exist in one layout, proportion becomes
important. If the base figure is unclear, the percentage becomes
doubtful. This goes to the root of how area is divided. Once the
base itself is disputed, the authority must act carefully. It can grant
conveyance to the extent clearly supported by record. But it cannot
finally decide a deeply disputed measurement issue in a summary
way. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has explained the history
of the project in detail. It is pointed out that the original owner
had large land and development was done in parts. A developer
was appointed. Buildings were constructed. Flats were sold.
Societies were formed. It is also shown from agreements that there
was clear intention to form societies and execute conveyance in
their favour. Importantly, the agreements allowed flexibility. They
permitted formation of separate societies for different buildings or
even common society. This shows that the project                    allowed
division as per development. Therefore, the argument that no
separate conveyance can ever be given is not supported by the



                                   18
                                             wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


documents.

16.   The clauses relied upon also support this position. They
show that purchasers were to form societies and conveyance was
to follow. They also show that more than one society could exist.
They protect common areas but do not prohibit separate
conveyances where appropriate. These clauses do not give a final
answer to measurement dispute. But they clearly show that right
of a society cannot be rejected only because other societies are
present in same layout.

17.   The conveyance dated 13 April 2023 is also important. The
petitioner himself has taken conveyance of larger land. In that
document, it is clearly recorded that buildings exist, flats are sold,
and conveyance to societies is still to be completed. It also says
that such rights of societies continue. The petitioner cannot rely
on that document for title and at the same time deny what it
clearly states. The document does not close the rights of societies.

18.   At the same time, this document also shows one more thing.
It shows that what is to be conveyed is not uncertain. It is
proportionate and subject to layout. So the real dispute now is not
whether respondent No.1 has right. The real dispute is how much
area it can claim. Different sides are giving different calculations.
One relies on architect certificate. Other relies on structure of
building and layout. This makes the dispute one of measurement.

19.   The submission of the petitioners that grant of conveyance
may affect other societies also requires serious thought. A
summary order should not settle such inter se disputes finally



                                 19
                                               wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


when proper evidence is required. In such situation, safer course is
to leave the matter for full adjudication before civil court.

20.   It is true that respondent No.1 has relied on architect
certificate. That certificate gives some basis. It shows built up area
and FSI. It supports their claim. But when serious dispute is raised
that even this base is incorrect or overlapping, especially in large
layout with many societies, deeper examination is needed.

21.   Therefore,    on   overall   consideration,     it    appears       that
petitioners have not shown that respondent No.1 has no right at
all. The Competent Authority was right to see that some
conveyance is due. But the exact measurement issue is not finally
settled and cannot be settled in this limited proceeding.

22.   In such situation, proper course is to allow parties to go
before civil court for full adjudication of measurement. That forum
can consider evidence, plans, expert reports and decide correctly.
Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for that detailed exercise.

23.   For these reasons, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
However, liberty must be given to the petitioners to file civil suit
for deciding exact measurement and related rights. The civil court
shall decide the matter independently on evidence placed before it.

24.   In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded
hereinabove, the following order is passed:

      (i)    All the Writ Petitions stand dismissed;

      (ii)   The respective judgment and order passed by the
      Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-



                                   20
                                      wp-9810-2025 with connected-J.doc


operative Societies (2), East Suburban, Mumbai, granting
deemed conveyance in favour of respondent No.1, is upheld;

(iii) It is clarified that the findings recorded in the
impugned order, as well as in the present judgment, are
confined to the limited issue of entitlement to deemed
conveyance and shall not be construed as a final adjudication
of the exact measurement of the land or the precise
allocation of area inter se between the parties or other
societies in the layout;

(iv) The petitioners are granted liberty to institute an
appropriate civil suit for determination of the exact
measurement of the land, the proportionate entitlement of
the respective societies, and all consequential rights arising
therefrom;

(v)   If such civil proceedings are instituted, the competent
civil court shall decide the same on its own merits, in
accordance with law, and without being influenced by any
observations made in the impugned order or in the present
judgment, except to the extent of the limited issue of
entitlement;

(vi) There shall be no order as to costs;

(vii) All pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed
of.

                                      (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                           21