Neeta Sawant 8-WP-12597-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12597 OF 2026 M s. Vaishnavi Associates, through its / Partner & Anr. ...Petitioners : Versus : The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Pavan Patil a w. Mr. Tanmay A.Deshmukh, Mr. Soham Badole and Mr. / Parth Malusare, for the Petitioners. Mr. Nimesh Bhatt, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The petition challenges order dated 11 December 2025 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane and Competent Authority (Competent Authority). 2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Bhatt, for Respondent No.4 and considered the submissions canvassed by them. PAGE NO. 1 of 5 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 8-WP-12597-2026.docx 3) Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the land in question by virtue of sale-deed dated 15 February 2017 and 16th February 2017. However, perusal of the sale-deeds would indicate that the land has been sold to the Petitioners on ‘as is where is basis. ’ Petitioners have purchased the land with full knowledge of the fact that a building is constructed thereon and flats in the building are sold and occupied by the flat purchasers. It appears that the Petitioners earlier opposed the formation of a Co-operative Society and succeeded in those proceedings by order dated 10 January 2020. The Divisional Joint Registrar ordered cancellation of registration granted to the society formed by the unit purchasers. Later, the unit purchasers apparently filed a fresh proposal and by order dated 8 September 2026, the Assistant Registrar has registered 'Shree Krishna Industrial Estate Co- operative Society Ltd. On application made by the society, the ' Competent Authority has granted conveyance of the land and building in favour of the society. 4) Even if Petitioners may have purchased the land from the erstwhile land owners, what they have purchased essentially is mere an obligation to convey the land and building in favour of the organization of flat purchasers. Merely because the land owner developer commits / breach of statutory obligation under Section 11(1) of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) and alienates the land to a third party instead of conveying the same to the society, the same does not affect the right of the society to secure conveyance of the land. By a statutory fiction, divestment of title of the original land owner took place the moment all the flats in the building are sold. Only obligation PAGE NO. 2 of 5 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 8-WP-12597-2026.docx to execute a formal document of conveyance remained to be performed by the land owner. What is performed by the Competent Authority is only the latter part of vesting of title in favour of the organization of flat purchasers when the original land owner developer refuses to co- / operate in execution of such conveyance. In the present case, there was nothing left for the original land owner to be sold in favour of either Mr. D mello or in favour of the Petitioner. After construction of the ’ building and sale of flats what remained with the original land owner was mere obligation to convey the land and building to the flat purchasers. What the original land owner Mr.D mello sold to the / ’ Petitioner is only the obligation under Section 11(1) of MOFA to convey his right, title and interest in the land and the building in favour of the society. 5) It is strenuously sought to be argued on behalf of the Petitioner that though Petitioner was impleaded as party opponent in the deemed conveyance application, it never received any notice in the application. My attention is invited to the title in the order which indicates that the full address of the Petitioner was not reflected on account of which the Petitioner apparently did not receive notice of the application. However, even if Petitioner was to receive a notice of the application, all that it would have contended before the Competent Authority is the factum of sale of the land to him vide sale-deed dated 15 and 16 February 2017. Thus, even after hearing the Petitioner, the Competent Authority could have proceeded to grant certificate of deemed conveyance of land and building in favour of the Respondent- society. PAGE NO. 3 of 5 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 8-WP-12597-2026.docx 6) It appears that conveyance deed in pursuance of the order dated 11 December 2025 has already been registered in favour of Respondent No.3-society. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to remand the proceedings only for the purpose of grant of opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. This Court has heard the Petitioner and considered all the objections raised by it. The objections raised on behalf of the Petitioner does not appeal to this Court. Ordinarily the objection ought to have been considered and decided by the Competent Authority. However, looking at the unique facts and circumstances of the present case, I have considered and decided the objections raised on behalf of the Petitioner. It appears that the building has been constructed some time in the year 1973 and the building is without conveyance for over 50 years. Instead of conveying the land and building in favour of organization of flat purchasers, the original land owner has defaulted in the statutory obligation and erroneously conveyed the land to third parties (Mr. Dmello and thereafter to the Petitioner). The purchase is made the Petitioner with objective of earning profits in the redevelopment process. That what lawfully belongs to the society is purchased by the Petitioner. The redevelopment of the building will be carried out by the society, which is the real owner of the land. The objective behind filing this petition is to create hurdles in the conveyance and to delay the same so that Petitioner has a stake in the redevelopment process. I am therefore not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, even though Petitioner may not be served with notice of the application, since I am satisfied with the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. PAGE NO. 4 of 5 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 8-WP-12597-2026.docx 7) Considering these unique circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to disturb the impugned order which results in vesting of title in the land and the building in favour of the organization of flat purchasers which is the real objective behind S.11 of MOFA. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.] PAGE NO. 5 of 5 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.10.03 17:04:30 +0530