Disposed¶25

Anusaya Ravindra KENI57 v. District Deputy Registrar and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2026WP/3886/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MOFA Act Section 11; Competent Authority; deemed conveyance; conferment of excess area; co-owner; question of title; proprietary rights; Article 226 writ jurisdiction; disputed questions of title; relegation to civil suit; Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar, J.; Writ Petition No. 3886 of 2024; decided 07-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all questions before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law; merits not examined and all questions kept open. ¶25

Anusaya Ravindra KENI57 vs District Deputy Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all questions before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law; merits not examined and all questions kept open.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a co-owner's grievance that the Competent Authority, while acting under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, granted rights or area beyond what was legally permissible - thereby affecting proprietary interest and raising questions of title - can be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226, or must instead be agitated before the Civil Court.

¶16

Court's answer

Disputes involving questions of title and proprietary rights - such as a petition filed by an owner alleging conferment of excess area - cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the appropriate remedy is to institute a civil suit.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant for deciding disputed questions of title; the proper course for the aggrieved petitioner is to approach the Civil Court, where all issues can be fully examined.

¶23

Key takeaways

This Court has not examined the merits of the rival claims; all questions raised in the petition are kept open and the petitioner is at liberty to agitate them before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) - Co-owner challenged an order of the Competent Authority passed under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, alleging that the Authority had granted rights or area beyond what was legally permissible, affecting his proprietary interest. Relying on the consistent view of the Division Benches of the Bombay High Court (Shimmering Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawawala; P.R. Enterprises) that deemed-conveyance proceedings are not intended to adjudicate complicated questions of title, that the Competent Authority exercises limited jurisdiction and cannot determine rival ownership claims, and that contractual entitlement or proprietary-right disputes must be agitated before the Civil Court, the Single Judge held that disputes involving questions of title and proprietary rights cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226; the writ jurisdiction is not meant for deciding disputed questions of title. The petitioner was relegated to the remedy of a civil suit. Petition disposed of with liberty; merits of the rival claims not examined; all questions kept open.

¶1

5-WP-3886-24-final.doc

¶2

Sayali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3886 OF 2024

¶5

Anusaya Ravindra Keni

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI

¶9

Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2026.04.07 18:16:50 +0530

¶10

District Deputy Registrar and Others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Mr. Suraj S. Vishwakarma, for Petitioner.

¶13

Mrs. Ashwini Purav, AGP for State-Respondent nos. 1 and 13.

¶14

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 07, 2026

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

The co-owner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. The challenge is to an order passed by the Competent Authority while exercising powers under Section 11 of the MOFA Act. The petitioner has raised grievances which are mainly about the extent and scope of the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the authority has gone beyond what was permissible and has granted rights or area which, as per the petitioner, could not have been legally granted. It is the case of the petitioner that such determination has affected his proprietary interest. At the same time, it is required to be noted that the order is passed in proceedings which are summary in nature. The Court therefore has to see not only what is alleged, but also what is the nature of the power exercised by the authority. If the grievance touches deeper questions of ownership, then the forum also becomes relevant.

¶17

¶18

5-WP-3886-24-final.doc

¶19

The Division Benches of this Court, in Shimmering Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2016, decided on 6 April 2016), have underscored that proceedings for deemed conveyance are not intended to adjudicate complicated questions of title. Similarly, in Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawawala & Ors. v. Competent Authority, District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies, Mumbai & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028, it has been reiterated that the Competent Authority exercises limited jurisdiction and cannot determine rival ownership claims. In P.R. Enterprises & Anr. v. Competent Authority & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2016, decided on 27 November 2018), this Court has held that disputes pertaining to contractual entitlement or proprietary rights must be agitated before the Civil Court. 4. The consistent view of the Division Benches of this Court is that, in a petition filed by the owner alleging conferment of excess area, such disputes, involving questions of title and proprietary rights, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to institute a civil suit. In view thereof, the Petitioner deserves to be relegated to the remedy of a civil suit.

¶20

When the present petition is examined in light of these principles, it becomes clear that the grievance raised by the petitioner is essentially about conferment of excess area and the resulting impact on ownership rights. This directly concerns title and proprietary entitlement. Determination of such issue would require detailed examination of documents, intentions of parties,

¶21

¶22

5-WP-3886-24-final.doc

¶23

and possibly oral evidence. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not undertake such an exercise. The writ jurisdiction is not meant for deciding disputed questions of title. Therefore, even if the petitioner feels aggrieved, the remedy cannot lie in invoking writ jurisdiction for adjudication of such disputes. The proper course is to approach the Civil Court, where all issues can be fully examined.

¶24

In view of the settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted relief in the present proceedings. However, it is necessary to clarify that this Court has not examined the merits of the rival claims. All questions raised in the petition are kept open. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the same before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶25

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with liberty as stated above.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Anusaya Ravindra KENI57 v. District Deputy Registrar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusaya Ravindra KENI57 v. District Deputy Registrar 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

Chemtrade Global Impex LLP vs Bhange Organic Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

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

Ramanlal Nathmal Jain and Ors. vs Lumbini Co. Op. Housing Society Thr. Its Chairman/Secretary and Ors.

Aruna Rashid Kathiwala Thr Her Poa vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Lou Ann Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra Thro. District Deputy Registrar of Co.-Op Soc

The Executive Engineer, Raigad vs Shri. Sudhakar Rajaram Sutar and Ors.