Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7235 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7234 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2024 Gagan Solitaire CHS Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Chairman / Secretary, Samrat Empire Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Joel D’souza i/b Mr. Suresh Kamble for Petitioner. Ms. Nilam Vete for Respondent No. 1. Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 24 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges order dated 5 September 2023 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Palghar and Competent Authority (Competent Authority) issuing certificate of unilateral Page No. 1 of 4 24 August 2026 Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 3143 sq. mtrs in favour of the Respondent No. 1-society. 2) I have heard Mr. D’souza, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Vete the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Crasto, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State. 3) Perusal of the order of the Competent Authority would indicate that the authority has relied upon sanctioned plan dated 15 September 2009 as well as the certificate of the architect. However, certificate of the architect relied upon by Respondent No. 1 makes reference to building plan dated 19 January 2005. Apart from the difference in the building plans, the Competent Authority has not undertaken the exercise of proportionate land division. The architect has merely taken into consideration the builtup area utilized in construction of Respondent No. 1-society. The total built up area is apparently found as 3143 sq. mtrs. Therefore, the architect has blindly suggested that Respondent No. 1-society shall be entitled to conveyance of land admeasuring 3143 sq. mtrs. Both the plans of 2005 as well as 2009 would indicate construction of multiple buildings in the layout. In that view of the matter, it would be necessary for the architect to determine land entitlement of Respondent No. 1-society corresponding to the builtup area used in construction of its building. This exercise is not carried out by the architect of Respondent No. 1. The Competent Authority has also blindly relied upon erroneous certificate issued by the architect and has directed conveyance of land admeasuring 3143 sq mtrs. In my view, therefore, the proceedings are required to be remanded to the the Page No. 2 of 4 24 August 2026 Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx Competent Authority for fresh adjudication. In such remanded proceedings Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 1-society can rely upon certificates of their respective architects for the purpose of guiding the Competent Authority in making the proportionate land division. 4) Petition accordingly succeeds in part and I proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Order dated 5 September 2023 passed by the Competent Authority is set aside. Consequently the Registered deed of conveyance executed in favour of Respondent No. 1-society as well as the relevant revenue entry are also set aside. (ii) Application No. 259/2022 is remanded to the Competent Authority for being decided fresh. (iii) In the remanded proceedings Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to produce before the Competent Authority certificates of their respective architects indicating the proportionate land division. (iv) The Competent Authority shall keep in mind the provisions of GR dated 22 June 2018 as well as various judgments delivered by this Court while making the proportionate land division. Page No. 3 of 4 24 August 2026 Renuka 33-WP-428-2024.docx (v) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (vi) Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 shall appear before the Competent Authority on 2 September 2026 alongwith copy of this order downloaded from website of this Court and seek further directions for fixation of date(s) of hearing in the remanded proceedings. 5) With the above directions Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Nothing survives in the Interim Application which is disposed of . [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 24 August 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 14:53:51