Dismissed

Dev Exotica Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit v. M/S. Nagpal Landmarks a Partnership Firm Thor. Its Partners a. Amit K. Nagpal, and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2026WP/12179/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This brief order dismisses a writ petition challenging a Competent Authority's order under the MOFA Act. The Bench held that the availability of an alternative substantive civil suit precluded judicial interference in this writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

What the court decided

Dev Exotica Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit vs M/S. Nagpal Landmarks a Partnership Firm Thor. Its Partners a. Amit K. Nagpal, and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

15-wp-12179-2025.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12179 OF 2025

¶5

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR SHABNOOR AYUB AYUB PATHAN PATHAN Date: 2026.04.27 16:54:19 +0530

¶6

Dev Exotica Sahakari Griharachana Sansthan Maryadit … Petitioner V/s. Nagpal Landmarks A Partnership Firm Through Its Partners A Amit K Nagpal & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prasand S. Dani, Sr. Advocate with S. C. Wakankar i/b Prabhanjan B. Gujar, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal a/w Mr. Rohit Jain i/b Jayakar and Partners, for Respondent No.1. Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, AGP, for Respondent No.53.

¶9

Mr. Priyank D., for Respondent Nos. 2 to 52.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 27, 2026

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The present petition, at the instance of the housing society, challenges the order passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”), whereby it has been directed that only an area lesser than what is claimed by the petitioner be conferred upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that it was entitled to the entire project area in terms of

¶13

¶14

15-wp-12179-2025.doc

¶15

the agreement. However, it appears that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner has instituted a substantive civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 1711 of 2024, seeking substantive reliefs including a decree for deed of assignment of development rights as well as conferment of the remaining area which, according to the petitioner, has been wrongly denied under the impugned order.

¶16

In view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy by instituting a substantive civil suit, it would not be appropriate to entertain the present writ petition.

¶17

However, it is clarified that the Civil Court shall decide Civil Suit No. 1711 of 2024 on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made by the Competent Authority or by this Court in the present order.

¶18

The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶19

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶20

Dev Exotica Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit v. M/S. Nagpal Landmarks a Partnership Firm Thor. Its Partners a. Amit K. Nagpal, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Dev Exotica Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit v. M/S. Nagpal Landmarks a Partnership Firm Thor. Its Partners a. Amit K. Nagpal, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vilas M. Suryavanshi vs Thane Municipal Transport

Sanjay Manya Dongarkar vs Gokhale Education Society

Mr. Manoj Shivali Katke vs Dombivli Nagri Sahkari Bank Ltd., Thane, through Its Chairman and Anr.

Manish Mathuprasad Mishra vs Assistant Registrar Sra K/W Ward Suburban at Mumbai and Ors.

Krishnakumar Karsandas Ashar vs Asha Nabar and Ors.

Sadashiv Nagappa Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Divisional Joint Registrar