The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 5, 2025, set aside the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City, which had granted a deemed conveyance certificate for 2120.25 square meters of land to Torana Co-operative Housing Society. The Court held that the Competent Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a third application for deemed conveyance after rejecting earlier applications, thereby violating the principles of res judicata.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, presiding over the matter, noted,
“The dispute is mainly about the area of land to be conveyed. Ordinarily this area dispute could well have been left to be adjudicated before Civil Court at the instance of Petitioners. However, erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Competent Authority has left no choice for this Court but to set aside its order.”
The matter involved two writ petitions. One was filed by M/s. Akanksha Constructions (WP 1), claiming rights over the land through agreements for sale dated December 14, 1979 and January 9, 1981. The other was by M/s. Nutan Realtors (WP 2), which claimed ownership via an indenture of conveyance dated March 1, 2012, executed by the original landowners.
WP 1 had constructed two wings of a building on part of the land but did not obtain an occupancy certificate. The flat purchasers subsequently formed Torana CHS, the third respondent. Following finalisation under the Town Planning Scheme, the plot in question became Final Plot No. 696. A dispute then arose about whether the entire 2120.25 sq.mts. of land was linked to the society’s building.
In 2011, Respondent 7, Divya Developments, entered a memorandum of understanding with Torana CHS to secure an occupancy certificate by combining adjoining plots. This led to the formation of another society, Divya Parshva CHS. The conveyance of Plot 696 to WP 2 by the original landowners further complicated the matter, with WP 2 asserting full development rights over the amalgamated lands.
Despite facing two earlier rejections, Torana CHS filed a third application for deemed conveyance, which was accepted by the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by this, WP 1 and WP 2 approached the High Court.
WP 1 argued that the third application was barred under res judicata principles since the second rejection order dated August 5, 2021, had not granted liberty to file another application. It also stated that Torana CHS was only entitled to 1397.67 sq.mts. of land, the area on which construction had actually taken place.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Upholds Gang Rape Conviction, Says Woman’s Past Relationships Don’t Imply Consent
WP 2 contended that it had the right to develop the entire layout comprising Final Plot Nos. 696 to 699, and the deemed conveyance order interfered with its development rights.
Torana CHS, on the other hand, maintained that its application was not barred by res judicata, as the previous applications had not been adjudicated on merits. It also asserted that the sanctioned construction plan supported its entitlement to 2242.83 sq.mts. of land.
The Court rejected these submissions and emphasized that the Competent Authority had no power of review and could not correct its own earlier decisions.
“They are not clothed with power of review. They cannot correct their own mistakes, nor can they sit in appeal over their own decisions,” the Court remarked.
Justice Marne further stated,
In the present case, the Competent Authority had shut its doors for the society while passing order dated 5 August 2021 by not granting any liberty to it to file fresh application… Attempt to correct its own error by entertaining fresh application for deemed conveyance is a serious jurisdictional error, which leaves no option for this Court but to set aside the impugned order
The Court observed that res judicata went to the very root of the Competent Authority’s jurisdiction to entertain the third application.
the objection of res-judicata goes to the very root of jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to decide third application filed by Torna CHS, the judgment said.
Although the Court set aside the impugned order dated November 14, 2024, it acknowledged the society’s statutory right to seek conveyance and allowed liberty to challenge the earlier rejection order dated August 5, 2021.
“If liberty is not granted to Torna CHS to challenge the order dated 5 August 2021, it would be rendered remediless… Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 14 November 2024, the society deserves to be granted liberty to challenge the order dated 5 August 2021,” the Court concluded.
The petitions were allowed, restoring the parties to their earlier legal positions and enabling Torana CHS to challenge the second rejection order if it so chooses.
Case Details:
Case Title: M/s. Akanksha Construction Company v. The State of Maharashtra
Writ Petition No.: 19417 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 1171 of 2025
Date of Judgment: May 5, 2025
Presiding Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Court: Bombay High Court
