Chandrakant Shripat Tambokar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2026WP/16648/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963; Section 11 deemed conveyance; Competent Authority; impleadment as opponent; Section 2(c) promoter definition; development agreement versus ownership; registered sale deed; recording of reasons in statutory/quasi-judicial decisions affecting civil rights; owner not a stranger to conveyance proceedings; unreasoned order quashed and set aside; Rule absolute prayer clause (a); Bombay High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Amit Borkar J.; Writ Petition 16648/2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment quashed and set aside; petitioner to be impleaded as an opponent in the proceedings before the Competent Authority; Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); writ petition disposed of. ¶¶28

Chandrakant Shripat Tambokar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims ownership rights in the property that is the subject of deemed-conveyance proceedings under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, was entitled to be impleaded as an opponent, and whether the Competent Authority's unreasoned rejection of his impleadment application was sustainable. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

When an authority exercises statutory powers affecting the civil rights of parties, it must record reasons disclosing the basis of its decision, so that parties understand why a request is rejected and a superior court can examine whether jurisdiction was exercised properly; in the present case such reasoning was completely absent.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The definition of 'promoter' in Section 2(c) is not narrow or restricted to a builder who actually constructs the building; being wider, it includes a person who causes construction of a building to be made for the purpose of selling flats, so even a landowner who initiates or permits development of his property through another person may fall within the expression 'promoter'.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

Execution of a development agreement by itself does not divest the owner of ownership in the property; with no registered sale deed transferring the owners' right, title or interest shown on record, the land continues to belong to the owner unless there is a valid conveyance transferring title.ratio¶¶23
Since proceedings under Section 11 ultimately result in transfer of title in favour of the society, the owner's presence is relevant so that all persons having interest in the property are heard before any such order is passed; once the Section 2(c) definition is read in its proper scope, the petitioner cannot be treated as a stranger to the proceedings.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 16648 of 2025 (Amit Borkar, J.; decision dated March 16, 2026). The petitioner, claiming ownership of property undergoing deemed-conveyance proceedings before the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 in favour of the respondent society, sought impleadment as an opponent; the Competent Authority rejected the application without assigning any reason, without discussing facts or examining the legal position. Holding that an authority exercising statutory powers affecting civil rights must record reasons disclosing the basis of its decision, and that the Section 2(c) definition of 'promoter' is wider than a builder who actually constructs — covering a person who causes construction for the purpose of selling flats, including a landowner who permits development through another — the Court held that execution of a development agreement by itself does not divest ownership absent a registered sale deed or valid conveyance. As Section 11 proceedings ultimately transfer title to the society, the owner's presence is relevant so that all interested persons are heard, and the petitioner could not be treated as a stranger. The unreasoned rejection was unsustainable; the impugned order was quashed and set aside, the petitioner was directed to be impleaded as an opponent, Rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), and the writ petition stood disposed of. No precedent cases were cited.

¶1

33-wp16648-2025 Final.doc

¶2

MPBalekar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 16648 OF 2025

¶5

Chandrakant Shripat Tambokar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Abhilesh Upadhyay a/w H. Pandey for the petitioner. Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for the State – Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶7

Ms. Sonali Kunekar for respondent No.3.

¶8

Mr. Nitin K. i/by Usha A. for respondent No.4.

¶9

Ms. Pragya a/w Shubham M. i/by M/s. Legal Vision for respondent No. 8A.

¶10

Mr. Kailash Pathak for respondent No.12.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : MARCH 16, 2026

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶14

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property which is presently the subject matter of proceedings pending before the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. According to the petitioner, those proceedings relate to the issue of deemed conveyance in favour of the respondent society. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed an application

¶15

¶16

33-wp16648-2025 Final.doc

¶17

before the Competent Authority seeking to be impleaded as an opponent in the said proceedings. The petitioner asserts that since he claims ownership rights in the property in question, any order passed in the proceedings under Section 11 is likely to directly affect his legal rights and interest in the property. However, the Competent Authority has rejected the application for impleadment. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Competent Authority has rejected the petitioner’s application without assigning any reason. The order merely records the conclusion that the application for impleadment stands rejected. No discussion of the facts has been made. No examination of the legal position has been undertaken. The order does not indicate why the authority formed the opinion that the petitioner was not required to be heard in the proceedings. When an authority exercises statutory powers which have the effect of affecting civil rights of parties, it is expected that the authority should record reasons which disclose the basis of its decision. Reasons are necessary so that the parties understand why their request has been rejected. They also enable a superior court to examine whether the authority has exercised its jurisdiction properly. In the present case such reasoning is completely absent.

¶19

The respondent society has opposed the application for impleadment. According to the society, the original owners of the property had executed a development agreement in favour of a developer. On that basis it is argued that once such development

¶20

¶21

33-wp16648-2025 Final.doc

¶22

agreement was executed, the rights of the owners in the property stood exhausted for the purpose of the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. The society therefore contends that the petitioner cannot claim to be a promoter within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. If the petitioner cannot be regarded as a promoter, then according to the society he is not a necessary or proper party in the proceedings for deemed conveyance. On this reasoning the society submitted before the Competent Authority that the application for impleadment was liable to be rejected.

¶23

This Court has examined the above contention in the light of the statutory provisions. Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act defines the expression “promoter”. The definition is not narrow or restricted only to a builder who actually constructs the building. The definition is wider and includes a person who causes construction of a building to be made for the purpose of selling flats. Therefore, the law recognises that even a land owner who initiates or permits development of his property through another person may still fall within the expression “promoter”. In the present case the material placed on record shows that the owners had executed a development agreement in favour of a developer. However, there is no material to show that the owners have executed any registered sale deed transferring their right, title or interest in the land to any other person. Execution of a development agreement by itself does not divest the owner of ownership in the property. The land continues to belong to the owner unless there is a valid conveyance transferring title.

¶24

¶25

33-wp16648-2025 Final.doc

¶26

In these circumstances the owner continues to remain a person who has permitted and caused the construction to be undertaken through a developer. Such a person cannot be completely excluded from the proceedings relating to conveyance of the property. The proceedings under Section 11 ultimately result in transfer of title in favour of the society. Therefore the presence of the owner becomes relevant so that all persons having interest in the property are heard before any such order is passed. Once the definition contained in Section 2(c) is read in its proper scope, the petitioner cannot be treated as a stranger to the proceedings.

¶27

For these reasons, the Competent Authority ought to have examined the petitioner’s request for impleadment with proper application of mind. Instead, the authority rejected the application without reasons and without considering the statutory definition of promoter. Such an order cannot be sustained.

¶28

Hence, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application for impleadment is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be impleaded as an opponent in the proceedings before the Competent Authority.

¶29

Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause

¶30

(a).

¶31

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶33

Chandrakant Shripat Tambokar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Shripat Tambokar v. the State of Maharashtra 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

D B Corp Ltd. vs Asburt Gonsalves

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

Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Shekhar Popat Taware

Pravinkumar Jethalal Dave, Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bibhishan Rama Gore vs Mahesh Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. and Ors.

Pebbles II Co-Opearative Society Ltd. Throu. Rajesh Tulshiram Shelke vs M/S Abhinav Rainbow Developers and Ors.