Dismissed

M/S. Shree Chintamani Builders v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Aug 2016WP/2839/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Responding to a writ challenge against an order granting a deemed conveyance, the Bombay High Court held it could not examine title disputes. The Court ruled that the deemed conveyance does not conclude title issues, allowing the petitioner to file a substantive suit for that relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the issues of right, title, and interest cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction; the petitioner was directed to file a substantive suit.

M/S. Shree Chintamani Builders Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1-WP.2839.2013.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2839 OF 2013

¶4

M/s. Shree Chintamani Builders } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr. Mangesh Sadashiv Parte for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr. G. W. Mattos - AGP with Mr. Mohit Jadhav - AGP for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

¶7

Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar with Mr. Shantanu Chandratre i/b. M/s. Khandeparkar and Associates for respondent no. 3.

¶8

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATED :- August 11, 2016

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

Having heard both sides, we do not find that we should interfere with the impugned order granting the deemed conveyance in favour of respondent no. 3 society.

¶11

The petitioner's contention is that respondent no. 3 has no right, title and interest of whatsoever nature in CTS No. 2396/2 and that is wrongly included in the deemed conveyance. The apprehension is that this area would be usurped by the society (respondent no. 3) on the strength of this deemed conveyance and the order in that behalf.

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶14

1-WP.2839.2013.doc

¶15

We do not think that the petitioner's apprehension has any basis. This court in number of judgments and particularly in the case of Mazda Construction Company vs. Sultanabad Darshan Chs. Ltd. and Ors.¹ has clarified that an order granting deemed conveyance will not conclude the issue of right, title and interest in the immovable property and to such an extent as is apprehended by the petitioner. It is not as if such an order is passed that the petitioners have no remedy to question the act of the society on the strength of such deemed conveyance. The petitioner can still bring a substantive suit on title and point out therein that as far as CTS No. 2396/2 is concerned, the reservation was shifted. The petitioner was not allowed to put up any construction and both plots, namely, CTS No. 2396/2 and 2396/1A are separate having separate property cards and survey numbers. The possession of the respective plot sold to respondent no. 3 was given and the occupation certificate is also handed over. The possession of CTS No. 2396/2 still continues with the petitioner. All these assertions and by pointing out the relevant documents and records so also by leading oral evidence can be substantiated by the petitioner in the substantive suit. We do not think that in writ jurisdiction and in the garb of examining the legality and correctness so also validity of deemed

¶16

1 2013(2) All M. R. 278

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶19

1-WP.2839.2013.doc

¶20

conveyance we can examine these issues. They concern the right, title and interest in the immovable property. Therefore, by clarifying that the order of deemed conveyance shall not preclude or prevent the petitioner from filing a suit and claiming therein appropriate reliefs, we dispose of this writ petition.

¶21

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

J.V.Salunke,PA

M/S. Shree Chintamani Builders v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shree Chintamani Builders v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna S/O Punjaramji Shrikhande Vs High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 4 Ors.

Raoji Shivram Rane Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.

Jinender Kumar Jain and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Anr.

M/S Ramcharan Dairy and Cattle Farm and Anr. Vs Indian Overseas Bank Goregaon and 18 Ors.

Ashok G. Bhosle Vs Assistant Registrar, S.R.A.

M/S. Different Strokes and Anr. Vs the Shamrao Vithal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.