Renuka Thakur 16WP-12777-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12777 OF 2026 Harakhchand Premji Gala and Ors ...Petitioners V/s. Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar Co Op Soc. and Ors ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Bhavin Gala a/w Mr. Hitesh Solanki i/b Hitesh and Associates for Petitioner. Ms. Darshana Manjrekar a/w Ms. Anuja Ghugare i/b one Point Legal Solutions for Respondent No. 3. Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for the State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 28 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petitioner is an assignee of the land and the building from the original land owner. The original land owner subjected the land to a housing scheme and initially created tenancies in respect of the units constructed in the building. Subsequently, the original land owner accepted valuable consideration from the unit occupiers and converted their tenancies into ownership rights by various agreements executed in the year 1988. The unit occupiers have come together and applied for registration of the society under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). By order dated 10 June 2026, the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (3), Western Page No. 1 of 5 28 SEPTEMBER 2026 2026:BHC-AS:39684 Renuka Thakur 16WP-12777-2026.docx Suburbs, Mumbai and the Competent Authority (Competent Authority) has allowed the Application for registration of society. Petitioner, in his capacity as assignee of the original land owner has challenged the order dated 10 June 2026. 2) I have heard, Mr. Gala, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Darshana, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, and Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent- State. 3) The main point sought to be canvassed by Mr. Gala while challenging the order dated 10 June 2026 absence of valid agreement executed under Section 4 of the MOFA in favour of the unit occupiers. According to him, the original land owner had created mere tenancies in respect of the units through agreements initially executed in the year 1978. He submits that the subsequent agreements executed in the year 1988 are mere agreements to enter into agreement subject to fulfillment of various conditions and that these conditions remained unfulfilled. He submits that even if 1988 agreements are treated to be the one executed under Section 4 of the MOFA, the same have not been registered. 4) I have gone through one of the Agreements executed on 23 February 1988 by the original land owners in favour of unit occupiers of Flat No. 5. The Agreement clearly records that upon payment of consideration of Rs. 24,625/-, the tenancy rights of the occupiers have been converted into ownership rights. Thus, by agreement dated 23 February 1988, Flat No. 5 has been sold to the flat purchasers. The Page No. 2 of 5 28 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka Thakur 16WP-12777-2026.docx agreement thus conforms to the requirement of Section 4 of MOFA. No doubt, Agreement dated 23 February 1988 is unregistered. However, it appears that subsequently, the unit purchaser has paid the requisite stamp duty on a deed of declaration, which has been registered. So far as the vice of non registration of the agreement is concerned, the original land owner has to blame himself since Section 4 of MOFA puts an obligation on the promoter to register the agreement. A promoter who fails to register the agreement cannot take benefit of his own wrong and then question registration of the society on the ground that none of the agreements are registered. In the present case, though the agreements themselves are not registered, the unit purchasers have paid the necessary stamp duty and have registered deeds of declarations. 5) The original land owner is under obligation to transfer his right, title and interest in the land and the building in favour of organization of flat purchasers under Section 11 of the MOFA. The land owner is also under obligation under Section 10 of MOFA to form a housing society within a period of four months of sale of minimum number of flats required for formation of the society. In the present case, the original land owner has breached both the obligations. He did not form co-operative housing society within the stipulated time. Instead of conveying his right, title and interest in the land and building in favour of the society, the land owner has transferred the same in favour of the Petitioner by agreements dated 12 January 2020 and 7 November 2020. Thus, what is purchased by the Petitioner is merely an obligation to convey right, title and interest of the original land owner to the society so formed. Page No. 3 of 5 28 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka Thakur 16WP-12777-2026.docx 6) This Court notes the oblique motive of the Petitioners in opposing formation of the housing society. Petitioners have apparently purchased land and a building with the intention of the carrying out the redevelopment of the old building. All the decisions relating to redevelopment of the old building will have to be necessarily taken by the unit purchasers through majority decision of the society. Petitioners cannot decide any matters relating to redevelopment of building the society except as its members qua three flats allegedly owned by them. In the present case, formation of the society is being opposed by the Petitioners with the ulterior motive of preventing redevelopment of the society through collective will of all the flat purchases. This Court is not to inclined to entertain the present Petition filed by the Petitioners on this count. 7) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, there is failure on the part of the original land owner to register the agreements with the unit purchasers. Neither original land owner nor theirs assignees (Petitioners) can take benefit of their own wrong by preventing formation of housing society on the ground that flat purchase agreements are not registered. As observed above, the unit purchasers have already paid the requisite stamp duty and have also registered deeds of declaration. Considering these unique facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of the registration passed by the Competent Authority. Page No. 4 of 5 28 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka Thakur 16WP-12777-2026.docx 8) Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 5 of 5 28 SEPTEMBER 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/09/2026 10:28:38