Neeta Sawant 41-WP-14011-2025.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14011 OF 2025 Samadhan Rajaram Bhoir & Ors. ...Petitioners : Versus : The District Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Society, Thane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni i b. Mr. Kishor Ajetrao, for the Petitioners. / Mr. Jayant Gaikwad with Mr. Kartik Malusare, for Respondent No.2. Ms. M.S. Srivastav, AGP for State. CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The petition challenges order dated 15 July 2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane and Competent Authority (Competent Authority) issuing Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent No.2-society. 2) I have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Gaikwad, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-society and Ms. Srivastav, the learned AGP for State. 3) Petitioners are the original land owners and are aggrieved by the Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of PAGE NO. 1 of 3 Monday, 21 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 41-WP-14011-2025.docx Respondent No.2-society conveying land admeasuring 1510.70 sq.mts. Out of total land admeasuring 3690.00 sq.mts, it is the contention of the Petitioners that they never executed any Development Agreement for construction of chawl structure. It is further contended that there are no agreements executed under Section 4 of The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) for the purpose of Competent Authority assuming the jurisdiction under Section 11. 4) However, Petitioners have themselves placed on record, copy of Development Agreement dated 12 February 2024 executed in the names of Shri. Gurunath Shriram Bhoir and Shri. Sagar Suryaprakash Sawant. Mr. Gaikwad, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed on record an agreement executed with the flat purchaser-Vilas Janba Salamwaade which was apparently signed by Gurunath Shriram Bhoir in his capacity as partner of Shree Constructions. The said agreement was notarised. Subsequently, registered Agreement for Sale is executed with Vilas Janba Salamwaade which is signed by Dinesh Pandharinath Bhoir as partner of Shree Constructions. Thus there appears to be some linking material which creates presumption of execution of Development Agreement by land owners in favour of Shree Constructions. Earlier, Gurunath Shriram Bhoir and Shri. Sagar Suryaprakash Sawant, were partners of Shree Constructions and later Shri. Dinesh Pandharinath Bhoir apparently represented the firm-Shree Constructions as its partner. It therefore becomes difficult to conclude at this stage that no development rights were ever granted by the Petitioners for construction of the structure in question. PAGE NO. 2 of 3 Monday, 21 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 41-WP-14011-2025.docx 5) More importantly, Petitioners saw construction of the structure comprising of 40 units and did not raise any objection. If they had not granted any development rights, they ought to have objected to construction of the structure on the land. It is only at the stage where certificate of deemed conveyance is issued that Petitioners have woken out of their deep slumber and have sought to create title dispute. In exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA, the Competent Authority cannot undertake intrinsic evidentiary inquiry into the issue of title. As of now, this Court is satisfied that there is some link between construction of building and grant of development rights by the land owners vide Development Agreement dated 12 February 2004. If Petitioners believe that no development rights were ever granted or that the developer did not have right to construct the building, they are free to file a Suit claiming title in the land. By now, it is well established principle that grant of certificate of deemed conveyance is not final determinative of rights and entitlements of parties in respect of the land conveyed. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arunkumar H. Shah (HUF) Versus. Avon Arcade Premises CHSL1 6) The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioners shall however be at liberty to file Suit questioning the land conveyed in favour of Respondent No.2-society. Such suit, if filed, shall be decided on its own merits. [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.] 1 2025 SCC Online 825 PAGE NO. 3 of 3 Monday, 21 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.09.23 15:02:41 +0530