Dismissed¶31

M/S. Akash Builders v. Aashiana Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2025WP/17120/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; W.P. No. 17120 of 2025; N. J. Jamadar J.; 22-12-2025; M/S. Akash Builders v. Aashiana Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.; Section 11 MOFA 1963; Competent Authority; deemed conveyance order dated 29-10-2024; writ petition dismissed; no manifest illegality; promoter default in conveyance over 45 years; agreement for sale 1981; area shortfall in deemed conveyance certificate; liberty to institute title suit; Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Coop Society Ltd; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 828; competent authority cannot conclusively decide title; civil suit remedy open.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty kept open to the petitioner to institute a suit based on title. ¶31

M/S. Akash Builders vs Aashiana Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed; liberty kept open to the petitioner to institute a suit based on title.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the order dated 29 October 2024 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (deemed conveyance), i.e., whether the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

There was clear breach on the part of the petitioner in discharging its obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The area granted by way of certificate of deemed conveyance is less than the area agreed to be conveyed under the agreement for sale.

¶20

Key takeaways

Having regard to the default on the part of the petitioner/promoter to execute a conveyance in favour of Respondent No. 1 Society for over 45 years, the Court does not consider it expedient to exercise its writ jurisdiction, as the impugned order does not suffer from any manifest illegality.ratio¶21
The petitioner is not precluded from instituting a suit based on title, if it disputes the entitlement of Respondent No. 1 Society to the conveyance.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M/S. Akash Builders v. Aashiana Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., High Court of Judicature at Bombay (N. J. Jamadar, J.), Writ Petition No. 17120 of 2025, decided 22 December 2025: Writ petition challenging the order dated 29 October 2024 of the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (deemed conveyance) DISMISSED. The agreement for sale was executed by the petitioner-promoter in favour of flat purchasers in 1981; there was clear breach by the petitioner of its obligations under the MOFA; conveyance was not executed in favour of Respondent No. 1 Society for over 45 years; and the area granted by the certificate of deemed conveyance is less than the area agreed under the agreement for sale. The impugned order suffers no manifest illegality, so writ jurisdiction was not exercised. Liberty was kept open to the petitioner to institute a suit based on title if it disputes Respondent No. 1 Society's entitlement to conveyance, placing reliance on Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Coop Society Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 828, wherein the Supreme Court (as quoted in this judgment) concluded that the competent authority, following the summary procedure under Section 11(4) MOFA, cannot conclusively and finally decide the question of title and aggrieved parties can always maintain a civil suit, and that writ interference with a deemed-conveyance order is warranted only where it is manifestly illegal.

¶1

23 WP 17120.25.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 17120 OF 2025

M/S. Akash Builders

..Petitioner

Versus

Aashiana Co-Operative Housing …Respondents Society Ltd. And Ors

¶8

Mr. Aniesh Jadhav i/b. Shyam Singh, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 22^nd DECEMBER 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 29^th October, 2024 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of

¶13

the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner was not served with the notice of the petition.

¶15

In the impugned order, the Competent Authority has recorded that, notices were duly served and even published in two newspapers.

¶16

SAINATH

¶17

1/3

¶18

23 WP 17120.25.DOC

¶19

The Court finds that, the agreement for sale was executed by the petitioner in favour of the flat purchasers in the year, 1981. There was clear breach on the part of petitioner in discharging its obligations under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

¶20

It further appears that, the area granted by way of certificate of deemed conveyance is less than the area agreed to be conveyed under the agreement for sale.

¶21

In any event, having regard to the fact that, there was default on the part of the petitioner/promoter to execute a conveyance in favour of Respondent No. 1 Society for over 45 years, the Court does not consider it expedient to exercise its writ jurisdiction as the impugned order does not suffer from any manifest illegality.

¶22

At any rate, the petitioner is not precluded from instituting a suit based on title, if the petitioner disputes the entitlement of the Respondent No. 1 Society for the conveyance. A useful reference, in this context, can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arunkumar H. Shah HUF Vs Avon Arcade Premises Coop Society Ltd¹ , wherein the Supreme Court

¶23

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 828

¶24

2/3

¶25

SAINATH

¶26

23 WP 17120.25.DOC

¶27

expounded the nature and import of the proceeding before the Competent Authority, as under:

¶28

“37. Our conclusions on the interpretation of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 11 of the MOFA are as under:

¶29

ii. The competent authority, while following the summary procedure, cannot conclusively and finally decide the question of title. Therefore, notwithstanding the order under sub-section (4) of Section 11, the aggrieved parties can always maintain a civil suit for establishing their rights;

¶30

iii. The provisions of Section 11 are for the benefit of the flat purchasers. In writ jurisdiction, the Court should not interfere with the order granting deemed conveyance unless the same is manifestly illegal. The writ court should generally be show in interfering with such orders. The reason is that, notwithstanding the order under Section 11(4), the remedy of aggrieved parties to file a civil suit remains open; and …...

¶31

Keeping open the liberty to institute a suit, the petition stands dismissed.

¶32

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶33

SAINATH

¶34

3/3

M/S. Akash Builders v. Aashiana Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Akash Builders v. Aashiana Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishnan Chandran @ Kannan vs Shivkumar Ganesh (Petitioner) and K. Chandran (Deceased)

Ashapura Housing Private Limited vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Madhuri Rajendra Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubham Chsl Thr Its Hon. Secretary/Chairman vs M/S. N.R. Corporation and Ors.

Sayarimal M. Jain vs Sushila Ishwarlal Bhatt and Ors.

Mahesh @ Sagar Vijay Zurunge and Anr. vs Kalavati Shashikant Phule and Ors.