Nita Dilip Kshirsagar and Ors. vs the Competent Authority Dist. Deputy Registrar Co-Op Societies and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nita Dilip Kshirsagar and Ors. vs the Competent Authority Dist. Deputy Registrar Co-Op Societies and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether, in cases involving disputes relating to the quantum of area, the appropriate remedy available to the owner is to institute a civil suit for redressal of his grievances rather than pursue the matter before the Competent Authority. +2 more

Court's answer

In cases involving disputes relating to quantum of area, the appropriate remedy available to the owner is to institute a civil suit for redressal of his grievances.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition stands disposed of, with all questions raised in it kept open to be agitated in the civil suit.

Key takeaways

On perusal of the earlier adjudication, the earlier deemed conveyance application had been rejected on technical grounds without going into the merits.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 512 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), decided on 27 April 2026 by Justice Amit Borkar. The petitioners challenged a decision of the Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies) passed at the instance of the owner, raising the issue of rejection of an earlier deemed conveyance proceeding. Counsel for the petitioners urged that no architect’s certificate was produced to establish the respondent society’s entitlement and that the earlier rejection of proceedings under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”) had not been brought to the Competent Authority’s notice. On perusal of the earlier adjudication, the Court observed that the earlier application had been rejected on technical grounds without going into the merits, and noted the parameters governing such adjudication considered in Magnum Uni ‘A’ CHS Limited v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1519. The respondents relied on Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Limited, (2025) 7 SCC 249. Holding that, in view of the consistent view taken by this Court and as now recognised by the Supreme Court in Arunkumar H. Shah, in disputes relating to quantum of area the owner’s appropriate remedy is to institute a civil suit, the Court disposed of the petition, keeping all questions raised in it open to be agitated in the civil suit.

11-wp-512-2024.doc

Shabnoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.512 OF 2024

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR SHABNOOR AYUB AYUB PATHAN PATHAN Date: 2026.04.27 16:54:20 +0530

Nita Dilip Kshirsagar & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The Competent Authority District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Pratik B. Rahade, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Sandip Babar, AGP, for the State – Respondent No.1.

Mr. Rohan P. Surve i/b Yogesh Dandekar, for Respondent No.2.

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

P.C.:

The challenge in this petition arises from the decision of the Competent Authority, passed at the instance of the owner, raising the issue regarding rejection of an earlier deemed conveyance proceeding.

The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that no architect’s certificate was produced on record so as to establish the entitlement of the respondent society.

It is further submitted that the fact of earlier rejection of proceedings under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management

1

11-wp-512-2024.doc

and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”) was not brought to the notice of the Competent Authority.

On perusal of the earlier adjudication, it appears that the earlier application was rejected on technical grounds without going into the merits. The parameters governing such adjudication have been considered by this Court in Magnum Uni ‘A’ CHS Limited and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through the Office of SubRegistrar & Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1519.

Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Limited & Anr., (2025) 7 SCC 249.

In my opinion, in view of the consistent view taken by this Court and as now recognized by the Supreme Court in Arunkumar H. Shah (supra), in cases involving disputes relating to quantum of area, the appropriate remedy available to the owner is to institute a civil suit for redressal of his grievances.

Hence, keeping all questions raised in the present petition open to be agitated in the civil suit, the present petition stands disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

2