Neeta Sawant 907-WP-977-2023.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 977 OF 2023 Dattaram Bhiva Vaiti & Ors. ...Petitioners : Versus : The Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane & Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. D.D. Singh with Mr. D.K. Shukla i b. Mr. Abhinesh Yadav, for the / Petitioners. Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for State. Mr. Joel J. Carlos, for Respondent No.2. Mr. Nimesh Bhatt for Respondent No.15. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 10 JULY 2026. P.C.: 1) By this petition, the Petitioners have assailed order dated 11 June 2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane and Competent Authority (Competent Authority) granting certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of the land and building in favour of Respondent No.2-Society. PAGE NO. 1 of 5 10 JULY 2026 Neeta Sawant 907-WP-977-2023.docx 2) I have heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Carlos for Respondent No.2-Society and Mr. Bhatt for Respondent No.15. 3) Petitioners claim to be the owners of land which is conveyed in favour of Respondent No.2-Society. Several objections are sought to be raised for challenging the order of deemed conveyance. One of the objection is that Petitioners were never granted an opportunity of being heard while passing the order dated 11 April 2022. It is sought to be contended that Respondent No.2-Society deliberately gave misleading address in the application so as to ensure that the notices in the application are not served on the Petitioners. It is seen that the petition which was initially instituted in the name of the five Petitioners indicating that all five of them reside at the address of ‘Flat No.707, 7th Floor, Ostwal Ornate Building No.2, Near Jain Mandir, Jesal Park, Bhayandar (West), Thane-401105 . ’ However, during pendency of the petition, the First Petitioner-Dattaram Bhiva Vaiti passed away. Petitioners filed Interim Application to bring on record his legal heirs. The Interim Application has been allowed by order dated 1 April 2024 and five legal heirs of Petitioner No.1 have been brought on record. In the amended cause-title, it is claimed that Petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(d) are represented by Petitioner No.1(e)-Ramesh Dattaram Vaiti. The address of Ramesh Dattaram Vaiti is indicated as A 105, Vasundhara Apartment, ‘ / Station Road, Bandarwadi Naka, Bhayandar (East), Thane-401105 . ’ As against this address of the legal heirs of Petitioner No.1, the address indicated in respect of Opponent Nos.2 to 6 in the application was Old ‘ Survey No.149, New 11A, Hissa No.7, near Railway Station, Bandarwadi, Bhayandar (East), Taluka & District-Thane 401105 . ’ It is therefore difficult PAGE NO. 2 of 5 10 JULY 2026 Neeta Sawant 907-WP-977-2023.docx to believe that Respondent No.2-Society deliberately gave misleading address for the purpose of avoiding service of notices on Opponent Nos.2 to 6 in Application No. 66 2022. Mr. Carlos, submits that at the / relevant time, the structure at the address was apparently demolished and therefore notices came back unserved. He submits that Respondent No.2-Society did everything possible to serve Opponent Nos.2 to 6 in Application No.66 2022 by effecting substituted service on them by / publishing notices in ‘Daily Punyanagari and ’ ‘Active Times .’ Considering the above position, it is difficult to record a definitive finding that Respondent No.2 did not take effective steps for serving of notices on the application on Opponent Nos.2 to 6. 4) It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioners that they are the real land owners and had never granted any rights in favour of M s. Siddhant Developers from whom Society s members claimed to / ’ have purchased their flats. It is also sought to be suggested that only one Agreement for Sale was produced before the Competent Authority which was executed by M s. Siddhant Developers in favour of Narmada / Nandram Ahuja. Thus, the Competent Authority had before him some Agreement for Sale for the purpose of presuming that the building has been constructed by a developer by execution of Agreement for Sale. Now whether that the developer had underlying right to execute such agreements, to construct the building or to sell the flats is an issue which the Competent Authority cannot determine in limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA). If Petitioners believe that M s. Siddhant Developers did not / have right to construct the building or to sell flats, Petitioners need to institute Civil Suit and seek declaration of title. PAGE NO. 3 of 5 10 JULY 2026 Neeta Sawant 907-WP-977-2023.docx 5) As against the claim of Respondent No.2-Society of construction of a building in the year 1984, it is the contention of the Petitioners that the building has been unauthorisedly constructed in the year 2002. Even if the contention of Petitioners about construction of building in the year 2002 is momentarily accepted, it is seen that Petitioners have lived with the reality that construction of the building got completed, flats therein were sold and flat purchasers have been residing in the building for the last 24 long years. Petitioners did nothing to stop construction if they believed that the developer had no right to construct the building or that the land on which the building is constructed belongs to them. 6) As of now, what is done by the Competent Authority is performance of an act which the developer was supposed to perform under Section 11(1) of MOFA. The Competent Authority has conferred on to Respondent No.2-Society what he believes is the right of the developer. If Petitioners believe that developer does not have right which can be transferred to the society, it is always open to the Petitioners to seek a declaration to that effect from the Civil Court. It is well settled principle that mere issuance or registration of Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA, does not finally determine rights and entitlement of parties in respect of the conveyed land. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arunkumar Shah HUF Versus. Avon Arcade Premises Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.1. All that has happened as of now is that the Competent Authority has sought to confer some title in respect of the land on which society s building is standing in favour of the ’ society. Issuance of such certificate does not come in the way of the 1 (2025) 7 SCC 249 PAGE NO. 4 of 5 10 JULY 2026 Neeta Sawant 907-WP-977-2023.docx Petitioners to secure a declaration of title from the Civil Court. In that sense, the Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance, as well as the registered deed of conveyance would remain subject to the decree that would be passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, instead of this Court going into the intricate issue of title, it is better that Petitioners institute a Suit seeking a declaration that the land which is conveyed to the society actually belongs to them. 7) In view of the above discussion, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the Petitioners in the present petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of as such leaving open liberty to the Petitioners to file a Civil Suit to seek declaration of title in respect of the land conveyed to Respondent No.2-Society. 8) All contentions of parties on merits of the title dispute are expressly kept open and the Civil Court shall not get influenced by any of the observations made in the order. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] PAGE NO. 5 of 5 10 JULY 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.07.10 15:15:41 +0530