Disposed

Maneesh Bawa v. Bps Aastha Co. Op Housing Society Ltd.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2024WP/2034/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenge a corrigendum order correcting area in a deemed conveyance granted to a housing society. The court rules that a deemed conveyance order does not conclude title issues, vacates the earlier ad interim relief as the rectified deed was already registered, and expedites the hearing with steps subject to the writ result.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued; ad interim relief discontinued; hearing expedited; society's steps subject to writ outcome.

Maneesh Bawa vs Bps Aastha Co. Op Housing Society Ltd. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

906-WP-2034-2024 (STM).DOC

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2034 OF 2024

Maneesh Bawa & Ors.

…Petitioners

Versus

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2024.12.06 09:55:44 +0530

¶8

B.P.S. Aastha Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

¶9

& Anr.

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

Mr. J. S. Kini a/w. Mr. Aum Kini i/b. Ms. Sapna Krishnappa, Advocates, for the Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Mr. Manish Kenia, Ms. Ankita Sovani, Mr. Bhavik Chheda, Advocates, i/b. Legal Spectrum, for the Respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. G.P., Ms. Gaurangi Patil, AGP, for the Respondent No.2.

¶14

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 22^nd NOVEMBER 2024

¶15

P. C.:

¶16

Heard Mr. Kini, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶17

Petitioners, Mr. Walve, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Society and Mr. Jadhav, learned Addl. G.P., appearing for the Respondent No.2-State.

¶18

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 10^th February 2022 passed by the Respondent No.2

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

Sonali

¶21

This order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 05.12.2024.

¶22

906-WP-2034-2024 (STM).DOC

¶23

i.e. the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Eastern Suburban, Mumbai.

¶24

The main contention raised by Mr. Kini, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that as per the settled position unless statute so permit, Review Application is not maintainable in case of judicial and quasi judicial orders. He also relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Kashish Park Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.¹

¶25

On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. Walve, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Society that MOFA agreement is with respect to 1733.33 sq.yards i.e. 1499.28 sq.mtrs. Deemed Conveyance has been granted by order dated 31^st October 2015 for an area of 1329.92 sq.mtrs. He therefore, submitted that Corrigendum Application is maintainable. He further points out the observations in the impugned order on page 27, wherein it is stated that the area is corrected as per the sanctioned plan. Mr. Walve, learned Counsel therefore submitted that the correction done in the area of the order granting Deemed Conveyance by the

¶26

1 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 778

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

Sonali

¶29

This order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 05.12.2024.

¶30

906-WP-2034-2024 (STM).DOC

¶31

impugned order is permissible as the same amounts to rectification of clerical mistake.

¶32

Accordingly, arguable questions are raised. Hence, Rule .

¶33

Although, learned Single Judge granted ad interim relief by order dated 31^st August 2023 directing that the Respondent No.1Society not to take further steps with respect to Deemed Conveyance, however, Mr. Walve, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Society points out that the earlier Deemed Conveyance is granted by order dated 31^st October 2015 and the said Deemed Conveyance dated 24^th April 2017 was registered on 30^th June 2017 and the Deemed Conveyance as corrected by the impugned order dated 10^th February 2022 has been registered on 20^th April 2022 by Deed of Rectification. Thus, he submitted that the said exercise was completed before the learned Single Judge passed the said order dated 31^st August 2023.

¶34

It is the further submission of Mr. Walve, learned Counsel of

¶35

the Respondent-Society that the Petitioners were the earlier land

¶36

owners and they have executed Development

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

Sonali

¶39

This order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 05.12.2024.

¶40

906-WP-2034-2024 (STM).DOC

¶41

Agreement/Collaboration Agreement dated 27^th September 2003 in favour of the Developer and therefore, the Petitioners are not having any right, title and interest in the property in question. He further submits that this is a case where the Petitioners have entered into the transaction with the developer and the developer has accordingly developed the property and the developer is not raising any dispute with respect to the order of Deemed Conveyance or order by which corrigendum is issued with respect to the Deemed Conveyance. He therefore, submits that the Petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order and therefore, also ad interim relief granted in favour of the Petitioner be not continued.

¶42

It appears that when the learned Single Judge passed the ad interim order granted on 31^st August 2023, these aspects were not pointed out to the learned Single Judge.

¶43

Apart from the above aspects, it is settled legal position that order granting Deemed Conveyance doesn’t conclude the issue of title and the Petitioners who claims to be the owners, can file substantive Suit to establish their title.

¶44

Page 4 of 5

¶45

Sonali

¶46

This order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 05.12.2024.

¶47

906-WP-2034-2024 (STM).DOC

¶48

Thus, no case is made out for granting any adinterim/interim relief or to continue ad-interim relief granted by order dated 31^st August 2023.

¶49

However, it is clarified that steps, if any, taken by the Respondent No.1-Society on the basis of the Deemed Conveyance as rectified pursuant to the impugned order are subject to the result of the Writ Petition.

¶50

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the hearing of the Writ Petition is expedited.

¶51

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sonali

¶54

This order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 05.12.2024.

Maneesh Bawa v. Bps Aastha Co. Op Housing Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maneesh Bawa v. Bps Aastha Co. Op Housing Society Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indira Bhaskar Shetty and Another vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

Indira Bhaskar Shetty and Another vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

Sabina Lakdawala vs Feroz Lakdawala and 8 Ors.

Indira Bhaskar Shetty and Another vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

Mukesh Sukhdeo Bhalerao vs the State of Maharashtra through to Be Served through Govt. Pleader(O.S.) and 6 Ors.

Manoj Bharat Kishore Gupta vs Shashibala Bharat Kishore Gupta and 3 Ors.