Neeta Sawant 12-WP-12801-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12801 OF 2026 Mamta Laxman Hatiskar ...Petitioner : Versus : Saikrupa Sahakari Gruhrachana Sanstha Ltd. alias Saikrupa Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M.D. Ramteke, for the Petitioner. Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for State. CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The petition challenges order dated 5 August 2026 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune (Rural) and Competent Authority granting certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of the land and the building in favour of Respondent No.1-society. 2) I have heard Mr. Ramteke, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. PAGE NO. 1 of 3 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 12-WP-12801-2026.docx 3) It is contended by Mr. Ramteke that Petitioner has a share in the land and in absence of any document executed by the Petitioner granting development rights in the land, building has been illegally constructed by Respondent No.6-developer acting on the basis of the alleged unregistered Development Agreement dated 8 April 1994. 4) It is seen that the Developer has acted on the basis of Development Agreement dated 8 April 1994 and secured development permission from the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the developer constructed two buildings comprising of 20 flats and and 6 shops on the land in question. Petitioner never stopped the developer from constructing the buildings. Petitioner also did not oppose formation of Co-operative Housing Society, which got registered on 19 December 1998. It is only at the time when the society applied for deemed conveyance that the Petitioner thought of asserting his alleged ownership in the land and raised objection to the validity of Development Agreement dated 8 April 1994. Competent Authority being a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, cannot decide the issue of validity of the Development Agreement. That issue can be decided only by the Civil Court. It appears that Petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 167 2026 questioning the validity of the Development Agreement / and other related documents. In that Suit, Petitioner can also challenge Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance dated 5 August 2026. By now it is well settled position that certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance is not final determinative of rights and entitlements of parties in respect of the conveyed land. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in ' Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-Operative Society Limited and Others1. 1[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1350 PAGE NO. 2 of 3 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 12-WP-12801-2026.docx 5) In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to entertain challenge by the Petitioner to the impugned order dated 5 August 2026. Reserving the liberty to the Petitioner as discussed above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.] PAGE NO. 3 of 3 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.10.01 16:51:00 +0530