Disposed

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bombay and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2024WP/2377/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order granting unilateral deemed conveyance. The court held that the order did not warrant interference under Article 227 as the conveyance did not decide title, leaving the remedy for appropriate proceedings open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate grievances before the appropriate forum.

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

43.2377.15 wp.docx

¶2

Iresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2377 OF 2015

¶4

Neelkanth Mansions and .....Petitioner Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bombay and Ors

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Mr. Aum Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Manubarwala for Respondent No. 3 Ms. Diksha Shetty i/b AAK Legal for Respondent No. 4 Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State

¶9

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶10

DATE : 14^th FEBRUARY 2024.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Petition challenges an order granting unilateral deemed conveyance to the Respondent No. 3-Society. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the building of Respondent No. 3-Society

¶13

is part of the larger lay out, the Respondent No. 3-Society could have asked for conveyance only after completion of the entire project as stated in the MOFA agreement. He therefore submits that in view of

¶14

1/2

¶15

43.2377.15 wp.docx

¶16

the unilateral deemed conveyance, the Petitioner’s rights under the development agreement are affected.

¶17

Perusal of the impugned order indicates that unilateral deemed conveyance is granted in favour of Respondent No. 3-Society in proportion to the constructed area of the building of Respondent No. 3. Perusal of the reasons recorded in the impugned order does not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

The law with respect to grant of unilateral deemed conveyance is no longer Res Integra. It is well settled principle of law that grant of unilateral deemed conveyance does not decide the title of the parties to the property. Hence, it is always open for the Petitioner to agitate

¶19

the grievance by filing appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court.

¶20

Writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner

¶21

to agitate their grievances before the appropriate forum as permissible in law.

¶22

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶23

2/2

¶24

Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/02/2024 11:55:11

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bombay and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bombay and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Anil Shivajirao Bhosale and Anr. Vs the Commissioner for Co-Op. and Registrar, Co-Op. Soc. Pune and Ors.

Dhupeshwar Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

The Hon. Secretary/ Chairman, Mahim Makarand Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Div. Jt. Registrar C. S. Mumbai Div. and Ors.

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs Vishaka Vilas Kanse and Anr.

Shivraj Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Pankaj Textiles Vs Progressive Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.