Satguru Apartment Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thro. the Secretary Revenue Dept.

Bombay HC5 May 2026WP/15904/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

deemed conveyance; record of rights; mutation/recording of name; co-operative housing society; CIDCO Colony Officer; Tahsildar; Navi Mumbai; Rabale; Gat No.14; transfer fees; time-bound direction; ten weeks; writ petition disposed; Maharashtra; 2026:BHC-AS:11559-DB; WRIT PETITION NO.15904 OF 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 (Colony Officer, CIDCO) to decide the Tahsildar's communication dated 28/04/2022 within ten weeks on its own merits and in accordance with law; compliance requisitions to be intimated within two weeks with the petitioner to comply within a further two weeks; petitioner to pay requisite transfer fees. ¶¶32

Satguru Apartment Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. the Secretary Revenue Dept. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' failure to record the petitioner society's name in the record of rights pursuant to the deemed conveyance order dated 16/06/2014 and the registered deed of conveyance dated 16/12/2014 called for judicial intervention. +1 more

¶¶16-18

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed respondent No.4 to take a decision on the Tahsildar's communication dated 28/04/2022 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within ten weeks from communication of the order, on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

Any compliance required by respondent No.4 from the petitioner is to be intimated to the petitioner within two weeks, and the petitioner shall comply with the requisition within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶¶25-26
The petitioner undertook before the Court to pay the requisite transfer fees.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram M. S. Karnik & S. M. Modak, JJ.; decided 05/05/2026; neutral citation 2026:BHC-AS:11559-DB. Satguru Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. challenged the respondents' inaction in not recording its name in the record of rights pursuant to a deemed conveyance order dated 16/06/2014 passed by the Competent Authority in Application No.252 of 2013 concerning Gat No.14 (1619.33 sq. m.), Rabale Village, Rabale West, Navi Mumbai; the conveyance deed was registered on 16/12/2014. By letter dated 28/04/2022 the Tahsildar had sought the opinion of respondent No.4, the Colony Officer, CIDCO, on recording the society's name, but no decision followed. Counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to a time-bound decision on that communication. The Court directed respondent No.4 to decide the 28/04/2022 communication within ten weeks on its own merits and in accordance with law, required any compliance requisition to be intimated within two weeks with a further two weeks for compliance, recorded the petitioner's undertaking to pay the requisite transfer fees, and disposed of the writ petition. The merits of recording the name were not adjudicated.

¶1

2026:BHC-AS:11559-DB

¶2

Bhogale 28.wp-15904-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.15904 OF 2025

¶5

Satguru Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶8

.… Respondents

¶9

¶10

Adv. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Adv. Samir M. Suryawanshi, Adv. Bhakti Wast, for the petitioner.

¶11

Smt. R. M. Shinde, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 5^th MAY 2026

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

The petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of

¶17

the respondents in not recording the name of the petitioner in the

¶18

record of rights pursuant to the deemed conveyance order dated 16/06/2014 passed by the Competent Authority in Application

¶19

No.252 of 2013 in respect of the land bearing Gat No.14 having area admeasuring 1619.33 sq. meter situate at Rabale Village,

¶20

Rabale West, Navi Mumbai. We are not referring to the facts in

¶21

¶22

Bhogale 28.wp-15904-2025.odt

¶23

detail. Suffice it to observe that on 28/04/2022 a letter was issued

¶24

by the Tahsildar to the Colony Officer, CIDCO, asking opinion in respect of recording the name of the petitioner society pursuant to the deed of conveyance which was registered on 16/12/2014 in favour of the petitioner society. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present he would be satisfied if an appropriate decision on the communication addressed by the Tahsildar to the respondent No.4-The Colony Officer, CIDCO is taken in a time bound manner. The request made is reasonable considering that the communication was addressed as far back as on 28/04/2022 and no decision on the said communication has since been taken. We therefore direct the respondent No.4 to take a decision on the communication dated 28/04/2022 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of this order on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶25