Megha 2 & 49_wp_3310 & 3306_23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3310 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.11068 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3310 OF 2023 Parshuram son of Babu Chawre and Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Pruthvi Enclave II Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3306 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.11069 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3306 OF 2023 Parshuram son of Babu Chawre and Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. M/s. Dheeraj Regency Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. I.K. Tripathi with Ms. Bhagyashri Gawas i/b. Mr. C.K. Tripathi for the Petitioners. Mr. Mehul Shah with Ms. Nishita Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 and 7 in WP/3310/2023 and for Respondent Nos.1 and 25 in WP/3306/2023 Ms. Kausar Banatwala withMs. Sneha Mahawar i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia for Intervenor in IAST/11068/2026 Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/3310/2023 Page No. 1 of 3 23 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:39122 Megha 2 & 49_wp_3310 & 3306_23 Ms. A.A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent -State in WP/3306/2023. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges order dated 24 March 2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai and Competent Authority (Competent Authority ) granting certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of the land and building in favour of Respondent No.1-Society. 2) I have heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents, Ms. Banatwala, the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor and the learned AGPs appearing for the Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 3) It is the contention of the Petitioners that they are tribal and that the impugned order effects conveyance of a tribal land in favour of Respondent No.1 Society, which is not permissible in law. However, it appears that land has been subjected to housing scheme on account of a development agreement executed by father of the Petitioners and other co-owners. In pursuance of that development agreement, building plans were sanctioned in the year 2000. After sale of flats in the building a co- Page No. 2 of 3 23 September 2026 Megha 2 & 49_wp_3310 & 3306_23 operative housing society has been registered on 28 January 2002. The building has received occupation certificate. The land and the building are subjected to provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. All this happened in front of the eyes of the Petitioners. In fact, their father and other co-owners had executed the development agreement. Now the sons have turned around and are questioning conveyance of land in favour of Respondent No.1-Society. It appears that the Petitioners have already filed a Suit in the City Civil Court challenging the development agreement. They earlier attempted to seek restoration of the land under the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and outcome of those proceedings have gone against the Petitioners. Even appeal preferred by the Petitioners is also dismissed. 4) In view of the above position, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge to the impugned order dated 24 March 2022 passed by the Competent Authority. If the Petitioners believe that they are owner and occupiers of conveyed land, they would be free to challenge order dated 24 March 2022 before the City Civil Court. Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 5) Interim applications stand disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 23 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 17:35:48