Disposed

Raj Castle Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2024WP/250/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Housing society sought unilateral deemed conveyance; its application had been rejected for non-disclosure of material facts. Petition withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 11 MOFA, to be decided after notice per prescribed procedure; all contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to withdraw petition and file fresh application under Section 11 MOFA for unilateral deemed conveyance; all contentions kept open.

Raj Castle Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2024.05.10 11:59:17 +0530

¶2

11-wp-250-2017.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 250 OF 2017

¶6

Raj Castle Co-operative Housing Society Ltd … Petitioner

¶7

vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Sushil M. Shukla a/w. Janki J. Sampat, for Petitioner. Mr. Akshay Pansare, for Respondent No.11. Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 8^th MAY 2024

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats(Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 (‘ MOFA ’) for grant of the Unilateral Deemed Conveyance.

¶12

Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the application is rejected mainly on the ground of non-disclosure of all the material facts with respect to the application for deemed conveyance.

¶13

Considering the reasons for rejection of the application for

¶14

Page no. 1 of 2

¶15

11-wp-250-2017.doc

¶16

deemed conveyance the prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh application can be granted. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if a fresh application is filed.

¶17

Hence, if any fresh application is filed, the same to be decided by issuing notice to all the concerned parties and after following the necessary procedure prescribed under the MOFA read with the Rules framed thereunder and the Government Resolution dated 22^nd June 2018 prescribing the guidelines for deciding the application under section 11 of the MOFA .

¶18

Needless to record that if a fresh application is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by considering the aforesaid observations.

¶19

All contentions of all parties on merits are kept open.

¶20

Writ Petition is therefore disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶21

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶22

Page no. 2 of 2

Raj Castle Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Castle Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Suryakant v. Mane Deshmukh Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Op. Soc. Pune and Ors.

Shivaji Nagnath Mohite Decd Thru Lhrs and Anr. Vs Bhiku Sitaram Mali and Ors.

The Secretary, Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara and Anr. Vs Shri. Dhondiram Vasudeo Veer and Anr.

Varad Vaastu Enterprises Thr Its Managing Partner vs Bharat Lallu Bhai Jani and Ors.

Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Principal Sec.Home Dept and Ors.

Bharat Lallu Bhai Jain vs the State of Maharashtra