Dismissed¶¶21

Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Competent Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2026WP/15320/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MOFA deemed conveyance; Section 11(3) Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963; Competent Authority; deemed conveyance order dated 18 May 1982; natural justice / adequate opportunity of hearing; registered sale deed 1982; development agreement with developer; mutation entry not effected; no subsisting ownership or enforceable rights after transfer; locus standi to challenge deemed conveyance; flats sold by promoter through transferee; Writ Petition No. 15320 of 2025; Interim Application No. 910 of 2026; Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar, J.; petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None — petition dismissed with no costs; Interim Application No. 910 of 2026 held not to survive and stands disposed of. ¶¶21

Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Competent Authority and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — petition dismissed with no costs; Interim Application No. 910 of 2026 held not to survive and stands disposed of.

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having executed a registered sale deed in 1982 transferring all right, title and interest in the subject property (with no mutation entry effected), can maintain a writ petition challenging the deemed conveyance order dated 18 May 1982 passed under Section 11(3) of MOFA on the ground of inadequate opportunity of hearing.

¶¶20

Court's answer

Once the petitioner has transferred all right, title and interest in the property as far back as 1982, she cannot be permitted to enforce any rights in the present petition so as to challenge the order of deemed conveyance in respect of flats sold by the promoter through the transferee of the petitioner.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Merely because a mutation entry has not been effected, the petitioner cannot claim subsisting ownership or consequential enforceable rights in respect of the subject property.

¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.; decision dated February 2, 2026) dismissed a writ petition challenging a deemed conveyance order dated 18 May 1982 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 ('MOFA'). The Court noted that the petitioner had already executed a registered sale deed in respect of the subject property in favour of a company, which in turn executed a development agreement in favour of a developer. Held: merely because a mutation entry has not been effected, the petitioner cannot claim subsisting ownership or consequential enforceable rights; having transferred all right, title and interest as far back as 1982, she cannot challenge the deemed conveyance of flats sold by the promoter through her transferee. Petition dismissed with no costs; Interim Application No. 910 of 2026 disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

9-wp-15320-2025 with connected.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.15320 OF 2025

¶5

SHABNOOR AYUB

¶6

PATHAN

¶7

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2026.02.02 15:49:25 +0530

¶8

Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.910 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.15320 OF 2025

¶10

Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar … Applicant In the matter between Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Rohit Kurmi, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ashish Jagiasi a/w Minal Chandnani, for the Respondent No.3.

¶13

Ms. Mamta S. Srivastava, AGP, for the State – Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶14

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2026

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property in respect of which 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”), has passed an order of deemed

¶17

¶18

9-wp-15320-2025 with connected.doc

¶19

conveyance. The petitioner contends that the impugned deemed conveyance order dated 18 May 1982 has been passed without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶20

However, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent society pointed out that the petitioner has already executed a registered sale deed in respect of the subject property in favour of a company, which in turn has executed a development agreement in favour of a developer. Merely because a mutation entry has not been effected, the petitioner cannot claim subsisting ownership or consequential enforceable rights in respect of the subject property. Once the petitioner has transferred all its right, title, and interest in the property as far back as in the year 1982, the petitioner cannot be permitted to enforce any rights in the present petition so as to challenge the order of deemed conveyance in respect of flats sold by the promoter through the transferee of the petitioner.

¶21

Hence, there is no merit in the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶22

In view of the above, the interim application does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶23

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶24

Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Competent Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payal Chandrashekhar Jukar v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Competent Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Throu. Ashok Patil vs Lakhan Kakaso Shendge

Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Shekhar Popat Taware

The Sarpanch Grampanchyat Kune Na Ma and Anr. vs Anil Narayan Pingale and Ors.

Ashok Govind Gadgil and Anr. vs Vikas Govind Gadgil and Ors.

Jack Rosario Fernandes Scince Deceased Thro. Lrs vs Anthony Fernandes and Ors.

Ruby Kanakaraj Narapareddy vs Sharad Apartment Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.