9 wp 8992 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8992 OF 2026 Devendra Jaysing Shinde and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Konkan Angan ‘A’ Wing co-op. Society Ltd. and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Onkar Warange, for Petitioners. Mr. Y.S.Kochare, “B” Panel Counsel for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 31 JULY 2026 ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Warange, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 4 May 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mahad, whereby the application preferred by the Petitioners – Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and Defendant No.1, for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected. 3. Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking conveyance in respect of the property described in the plaint along with the admissible FSI thereof and the allied reliefs. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed an application for rejection of the plaint raising myriad grounds, ranging from the suit claim being under-valued to the suit being barred by the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, SSP 1/3 2026:BHC-AS:31687 9 wp 8992 of 2026.doc Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. Learned Civil Judge, Mahad, did not accede to any of the submissions. 4. Mr. Warange, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, confined the challenge primarily to the discrepancy in the area of the land in respect of which unilateral deemed conveyance application was filed by the Plaintiff – Society before the Competent Authority, and, the area of the land in respect of which such conveyance was claimed in the instant suit. It was submitted that the claim for conveyance in respect of the area admeasuring 2126.33 sq.mtrs., is far in excess of the area claimed in the application under Section 11 i.e. 647.21 sq. mtrs. only. Therefore, the suit seeking conveyance in respect of the expansive area to which the Respondent No.1 is, on its own showing, not entitled to, deserves to be nipped in the bud. 5. I am afraid to accede to the submissions of Mr. Warange. The entitlement of the Respondent No.1 Society for conveyance in accordance with the contractual and the statutory obligations contained in Section 11 of the MOFA 1963, is a matter of trial. The discrepancy in the area claimed before the Competent Authority and in the instant suit, even if taken at par, by no stretch of imagination, can be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold. 6. Moreover, it is well recognized that under Section 11 of the MOFA, 1963, the Competent Authority has to conduct a summary inquiry and discharge a statutory function of granting certificate of unilateral deemed SSP 2/3 9 wp 8992 of 2026.doc conveyance, if the requisite conditions are satisfied. The Competent Authority cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the title of the property. Nor the order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the MOFA 1963, precludes the aggrieved party from instituting a properly constituted suit based on title. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arunkumar H. Shah HUF V/s. Avon Arcade Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. and Ors.1. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained. 8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) 1 (2025) 7 SCC 249 SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/08/2026 15:42:15