As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged an order issued by the Competent Authority which modified a unilateral deemed conveyance certificate. The modification involved reflecting the exact proportionate share of ...
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6008 OF 2026
Shree Rasraj Heights Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd.
... Petitioner
: Versus :
1. Devendra Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., through its
Secretary/Chairman
2. District Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Mumbai City (4)
3. Smt. Chandrakanta Vijendra Sharma
4. Mr. Bharatbhushan Vijendra Sharma
5. Mr. Rajesh Vijendra Sharma
6. Smt. Pushpa Surendra Sharma
7. Mr. Sanjay Surendra Sharma
8. M/s. Brij Builders, through its
Partners
... Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 6024 OF 2026
M/s. Brij Builders ...Petitioner
:Versus :
1. Devendra Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., through its
PAGE NO. 1 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
Secretary/Chairman
2. District Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Mumbai City (4)
3. Mr. Bharatbhushan Vijendra Sharma
4. Mr. Rajesh Vijendra Sharma
5. Smt. Pushpa Surendra Sharma
6. Mr. Sanjay Surendra Sharma
7. Mrs. Sudha Wd/o. Narendra Sharma
8. Mr. Yogesh s/o. Narendra Sharma
9. Shree Rasraj Heights Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd.
... Respondents
________________
Mr. Nirman Sharma with Ms. Uma Sharma i/b. Dharam & Co., for the
Petitioner in WP-6008 of 2026.
Mr. Akshay Doctor i/b. Mr. Sachin Choudhari, for the Petitioner in WP-
6024 of 2026.
Mr. Shanay Shah with Ms. Janhavee Joshi and Mr. Maulik Vora i/b.
Pramodkumar & Co., for Respondent No.1 in both petitions.
Ms. Sulbha D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State in both petitions.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Resd. On : 06 July 2026.
Judgment Pron. On :15 July 2026.
PAGE NO. 2 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
JUDGMENT
1) By the present Petitions, the Petitioner-Society has
challenged order dated 12 January 2026 passed by the District Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City-4 and the Competent
Authority (Competent Authority) allowing Misc. Application �led by
Respondent No.1-Society and modifying the description of the property
conveyed vide Certi�cate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance dated 4 May
2017 by indicating the area of proportionate share in the Recreational
Ground (RG), as well as by specifying the exact land in the Survey
Numbers conveyed in favour of Respondent No.1-Society.
2) Writ Petition No. 6008 of 2026 is �led by one of the societies
in the layout whereas, Writ Petition No. 6024 of 2026 is �led by the
developer. The order dated 12 January 2026 is challenged in both the
Petitions essentially on the ground that the Competent Authority had
become functus of�cio after passing of the order dated 4 May 2017 and
could not have modi�ed the Certi�cate of Unilateral Deemed
Convenance already issued.
3) Considering the narrow controversy involved in the
Petitions, it is not necessary to narrate facts of the case in greater details.
Suf�ce it to observe that the larger property admeasuring approximately
7240.1 sq. mtrs spread across Survey No. 256 and Survey No. 183 Hissa
No.1 (corresponding to CTS No. 2453/A, 2453/B, 2453/1 to 2453/30)
situated at Village-Eksar, Taluka-Borivali, Mumbai was taken up for
development and the developer has constructed several buildings in the
PAGE NO. 3 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
layout. In respect of the buildings so constructed, two co-operative
housing societies are already formed. Petitioner and Respondent No.1
are the two co-operative housing societies formed in respect of the
buildings constructed in the larger property, whereas there are two more
structures named Ram Vihar and Ganga Vihar. Petitioner-Society is
formed in respect of building no. 4, whereas Respondent No.1-Society is
formed in respect of building no. A5. The two other structures standing
in the layout are building nos. A1 and A2. These buildings A1, A2, 4 and
A5 together utilise the entire available FSI/built-up area in the layout.
4) Respondent No.1-Society approached the Competent
Authority and �led Deemed Conveyance Application No. 62 of 2016
under Section 11(3) of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963
(MOFA). The application was allowed by the Competent Authority by
order dated 4 May 2017 conveying land admeasuring 2625.84 sq. mtrs
alongwith proportionate undivided share in all common properties,
internal road, RG, facilities and amenities, as well as access road out of
larger undivided plot of land admeasuring 7240.1 sq.mtrs spread across
Survey No. 256 and Survey No. 183 Hissa No.1 ,corresponding to CTS No.
2453/A, 2453/B, 2453/1 to 2453/30 situated at Village-Eksar, Taluka-
Borivali, Mumbai. Based on Certi�cate dated 4 May 2017, Respondent
No.1-Society executed and registered Deed of Conveyance on 25 January
2019 in respect of the land admeasuring 2625.84 sq.mtrs alongwith all
other common properties, internal road, RG, facilities and amenities and
internal road.
PAGE NO. 4 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
5) It appears that the building of Respondent No.1-Society was
taken up for redevelopment and the plans for reconstruction of its
building were sanctioned on the basis of the �gure of proportionate land
in the RG as indicated by Respondent No.1. However, the Certi�cate of
Deemed Conveyance as well as Deed of Conveyance did not re�ect the
exact share of Respondent No.1 in the RG Respondent No.1 accordingly
�led Misc. Application before the Competent Authority in Deemed
Conveyance Application No.62 of 2016 for effecting corrections in the
Certi�cate of Deemed Conveyance, inter-alia to re�ect proportionate
share of Respondent No.1 in the R.G. of 463.38 sq. mtrs. The Misc.
Application was resisted by the Petitioner-Society, as well as by the
Promoter. By order dated 12 January 2026, the Competent Authority has
allowed Misc. Application of Respondent No.1 and has corrected the
Certi�cate of Deemed Conveyance dated 4 May 2017. The Competent
Authority has made two corrections in the Certi�cate viz. (i) the share of
Respondent No.1 in the R.G.is re�ected as 463.38 sq.mtrs and (ii) the
exact land in corresponding CTS numbers is now re�ected in the
corrected certi�cate.
6) Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12 January 2026
and have �led the present Petition.
7) Mr. Nirman Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for Shree
Rasraj Heights CHSL (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6008 of 2026) submits
that the Competent Authority has erred in exercising jurisdiction in
entertaining Misc. Application �led by Respondent No.1. That after
passing of order dated 4 May 2017, the Competent Authority had become
PAGE NO. 5 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
functus of�cio. That the Competent Authority does not have jurisdiction
to issue a corrigendum. That under the guise of entertaining Misc.
Application �led by Respondent No.1, the Competent Authority has
effectively exercised the power of review when MOFA does not confer
such power on the Competent Authority. He relies on judgments of this
Court in Surya Corporation and another Versus. Competent Authority
the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society and others
1
, M/s.
Aakansha Constructions Co. Versus. The State of Maharashtra and
ors
2
, Kashish Park Reality Private Limited and another Versus. The
State of Maharashtra and ors.
3
, Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises
CHSL Versus. Sri. Krishna Premises Co-op Society
4
, and B.K.
Corporation Versus. The State of Maharashtra and ors,
5
in support of
his contention that the Competent Authority cannot correct the order by
issuing a corrigendum. He also relies on judgment of the Apex Court in
Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd Versus. District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
Society and others
6
.
8) Mr. Sharma further submits that even if power of correcting
the order is conceded in favour of the Competent Authority, still it has
committed gross error in conveying R.G. admeasuring 463.38 sq.mtrs in
favour of the Respondent No.1. He submits that if the R.G. is divided
proportionate to the built-up area utilised for construction of each
building in the layout, the share of Respondent No.1 in the R.G. is only
323.21 sq.mtrs. That there is serious dispute between the parties about
1 2025 (2) Bom CR 780,
2 WP NO. 19417 OF 2024 decided on 5 May 2025
3 WP NO. (L) 93044 OF 2020 decided on 11 December 2020
4 WP NO. 13181 OF 2025 decided on 7 March 2026
5 WP NO. 2453 OF 2018 decided on 9 June 2026
6 2025 (5) SCC 772
PAGE NO. 6 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
area entitlement of Respondent No.1 in the R.G. and that therefore this
dispute cannot be resolved in exercise of power of correction of the order
of deemed conveyance. He submits that the Competent Authority has
not applied its mind to the aspect of proportionate subdivision of R.G.
area and has blindly relied upon erroneous certi�cate of Architect
produced by Respondent No.1. That the said Architect Certi�cate of
Respondent No.1 divides the R.G. land in proportion to the plot
entitlement and not in proportion of the built-up area utilised. That the
methodology adopted by Architect of Respondent No.1 for subdividing
R.G. area is wholly erroneous. That oral plea now sought to be raised on
behalf of Respondent No.1 about use of TDR in respect of construction of
the building of the Respondent-Society was neither raised before the
Competent Authority nor recorded as a reason for conveying higher R.G.
area to Respondent No.1 than its true entitlement. In support of the
contention that reasons in the order cannot be supplemented in the form
of an af�davit, Mr. Sharma relies on Constitution Bench judgment in
Mohinder Singh Gill and another Versus. The Chief Elect ion
Commissioner New Delhi and Ors
7
. Mr. Sharma submits that the
impugned correction order dated 12 January 2026 grossly affects rights
and entitlements of Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL and that therefore the
same is liable to be set aside.
9) Mr. Akshay Doctor, the learned counsel appearing for M/s.
Brij Builders (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6024 of 2026) adopts the
submissions of Mr. Sharma. Additionally, he submits that the Competent
Authority has effected substantive modi�cation in the earlier order of
7 1978 1 SCC 405.
PAGE NO. 7 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
deemed conveyance. That once conveyance is registered on 25 January
2019, Competent Authority cannot exercise jurisdiction by effecting
modi�cation in the certi�cate of deemed conveyance. He relies on
judgment of the Apex Court in Dwaraka Das Versus. State of M.P. and
another
8
in support of his contention that exercise of power of correction
does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders. That only
accidental omissions or mistake not going into the merits of the matter
can be corrected even under Section 152 of the Code Of Civil Procedure,
1908 (Code). That so far as Competent Authority is concerned, the
statute does not confer even power akin to Section 152 of the Code. He
prays for setting aside of the corrigendum.
10) Mr. Shanay Shah, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1 opposes both the Petitions. He submits that the
Competent Authority has acted well within its jurisdiction by merely
specifying the numerical �gure of proportionate R.G. area or entitlement
which was already granted in favour of Respondent No.1 vide order dated
4 May 2017. That non-speci�cation of numerical value of proportionate
R.G. entitlement in the certi�cate of unilateral deemed convenance was
an obvious error, which is now corrected by the Competent Authority.
That both the Petitioners never disputed the entitlement of Respondent
No.1 in respect of land admeasuring 2625.84 sq.mtrs and are now
precluded from disputing the proportionate share of Respondent No.1 in
the R.G. area. That Petitioner's Architect has correctly computed R.G.
entitlement of 463.38 sq.mtrs. of Respondent No.1 by taking into
account the entitlement in respect of plot area of 2625.84 sq. mtrs.
8 1999 (3)SCC 500
PAGE NO. 8 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
Inviting my attention to the Architect's Certi�cate dated 23 February
2022, Mr. Shah submits that the total plot area is 6154.05 sqmtrs and
after deducting the land conveyed to Respondent No.1 of 2625.84
sq.mtrs, the balance land is 3528.21 sq.mtrs. which is to be shared
between 3 buildings of A2, A3 and 4. That accordingly, the Architect has
determined the R.G. entitlement of Respondent No.1 at 463.38 sq.mtrs in
same proportion as the land entitlement. He submits that in Jaywant
Ramchandra Keni Versus. The Competent Authority District Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Society
9
this Court has recognized power in
favour of Competent Authority to issue a corrigendum for correcting
obvious errors.
11) Mr. Shah further submits that the building of Petitioner-
Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL is constructed by utilising substantial portion
of TDR. Inviting my attention to the sanctioned plan dated 26 February
2009, Mr. Shah submits that the land utilised for construction of building
of Respondent No.1 was indicated as 2625.84 sq.mtrs in the plan and the
balance land of 3528.21 sq.mtrs was to be shared for 3 buildings A2, A3
and 4. That after deduction of land required for sustenance of A2 and A3
buildings, the land available for construction of building no.4 of Shree
Rasraj Heights CHSL was hardly about 300 sq.mtrs. However, building no.
4 is constructed by utilising built-up area of 5332.03 sq.mtrs by loading
huge TDR. That therefore the principle of proportionate division of R.G.
area corresponding to utilised built-up area cannot be followed in the
present case as held by this Court in Neelkanth Mansions and
9 WP(L) No. 8893 of 2023 decided on 19 January 2024
PAGE NO. 9 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Thane
10
.
12) Lastly, Mr. Shah submits that the impugned order dated 12
January 2026 ultimately results into mere re�ection of numerical �gure
of proportionate share of Respondent No.1 in the R.G. area. That the
order does not convey land in excess of what was already conveyed. He
submits that the building of Respondent No.1-Society has already been
taken up for redevelopment and that the plans are sanctioned by taking
into consideration entitlement of Respondent No.1 to R.G. area of 463.38
sq. mtrs. That construction of the building is now virtually complete and
that the redevelopment plans would get affected if the impugned order is
now set aside. He submits that since the impugned order ultimately
results in just, fair and equitable arrangement between the competing
parties, there is no warrant for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13) Rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties now fall for
my consideration.
14) The impugned Order dated 12 January 2026 is passed by the
Competent Authority correcting the certi�cate of unilateral deemed
conveyance dated 4 May 2017. The exact correction effected in the
certi�cate is re�ected in para-2 of the operative order dated 12 January
2026, which reads thus:
10 WP No. 3530 of 2026 decided on 25 June 2026
PAGE NO. 10 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
2. The property description in the Deemed Conveyance Order and
Certi�cate dated 04-05-2017, which presently reads as:
"land admeasuring 2625.84 sq. meters, along with proportionate
undivided share in all other common properties, Internal Roads, R.G.,
facilities & amenities, along with the access road from Rokadia Lane as
available in respect of the said plot of the land out of the larger total
undivided plot of land admeasuring 7240.1 sq. meters or thereabout on
the plot of Survey No. 256 & Survey No. 183, Hissa No. 1, corresponding
to CTS Nos. 2453/A, 2453/B and 2453/1 to 2453/30 in village-Eksar,
Taluka Borivali."
shall stand amended and substituted as under:
"land bearing CTS No. 2453/A (part) admeasuring about 2577.84 sq.
meters out of 5258.7 sq. meters; CTS No. 2453/29 admeasuring about 27
sq. meters; CTS No. 2453/30 admeasuring about 21 sq. meters; totally
admeasuring 2625.84 sq. meters and proportionate share in R.G.
admeasuring 463.38 sq. meters from CTS No. 2453/B; tot ally
admeasuring 3089.22 sq. meters out of 7240.10 sq. meter s
corresponding to Survey No. 256 & Survey No. 183, Hissa No. 1 in
village Eksar, Taluka Borivali along with the access road from Rokadia
Lane as available in respect of the said plot of the land.".
15) It appears that in the certi�cate of deemed conveyance
dated 4 May 2017, the Competent Authority did not indicate the exact
proportionate undivided share of Respondent No.1 in the R.G. The same
is now re�ected as 463.38 sq. mtrs in the order dated 12 January 2026.
The Competent Authority has branded the exercise of passing of
impugned order dated 12 January 2026 as a mere 'numerical expression of
such R.G. proportion is 463.38 sq. mtrs'. The Competent Authority has held
that the omission to make numerical expression of R.G. proportion was
clerical/arithmetical in nature. He has held that the correction relates to
the mode of expressing an already adjudicated right rather than
determining whether such right exists. The relevant �ndings of the
Competent Authority in paras-10(c),(i) and (j) of the order read thus:
PAGE NO. 11 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
c. With respect to the quanti�cation of the RG area, this Authority �nds
that the original 2017 order did not remain silent on RG. On the
contrary, it af�rmatively provided that the Society would be conveyed
land admeasuring 2625.84 sq.m "along with proportionate undivided
share in all common areas, internal roads, RG, facilities and amenities."
Therefore, the Society's substantive entitlement to RG as a common
amenity stood crystallised on 04/05/2017 itself. The omission in that
order pertained only to the numerical expression of such RG
proportion in square metres. This omission is, by its very nature,
clerical/arithmetical, inasmuch as it relates to the mode o f
expressing an already adjudicated right, rather than determining
whether such right exists.
xxx
xxx
i. In view of the above, this Authority concludes that the present
Corrigendum:
(a) Recti�es the CTS schedule to re�ect only the society's land, thereby
curing a clerical/description error;
(b) Quanti�es the RG share already granted, thereby curing an
arithmetical omission;
(c) Does not confer any new or additional substantive rights;
(d) Does not introduce any new CTS numbers or expand the physical
boundaries of the property;
(e) Falls squarely within the limited corrective jurisdiction permitted by
law; and
(f) Is consistent with binding High Court jurisprudence when correctly
distinguished on facts.
j. For abundant caution, and to faithfully record the scope of this
Corrigendum, this Authority reiterates and declares that:
"No new rights are being created by this Corrigendum, and the present
quanti�cation and substitution of the land schedule are strictly limited
to clarifying and giving precise effect to the proportionate RG share and
CTS description already conveyed in the original order dated
04/05/2017."
(emphasis and underlining added)
PAGE NO. 12 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
16) The certi�cate of unilateral deemed conveyance issued in
favour of Respondent No.1 on 4 May 2017 did not determine the exact
proportionate share of Respondent No.1 in the R.G. area. This was
apparently done since all the structures in the layout were entitled to
make use of common amenities of R.G. area. However, under the
Development Promotion and Control Regulations,2034 it is permissible
to put up construction based on FSI generated out of R.G. area. Thus R.G.
may be a mere open space for common use by all the existing buildings
in the layout. However, when it comes to redevelopment of the buildings,
it becomes necessary to determine proportionate share of each building
in the R.G. so that the society undertaking redevelopment can make use
of the built-up area �owing through the R.G. It is not known whether the
Development Control and Promotion Regulations which existed in the
year 2017 permitted FSI �owing through R.G. area or not. However, now
there is no dispute to the position that FSI does �ow out of even R.G.
area. In that sense, indication of proportionate share of each building in
the R.G. area is necessary from the point of view of redevelopment of the
buildings.
17) That seen in the light of necessity to re�ect the
proportionate share in the R.G. area to each building, one may contend
that the Competent Authority has merely indicated the numerical �gure
of such proportionate share by way of issuing order dated 12 January
2026 which the Competent Authority itself has branded it as a
‘corrigendum’ in para-10(i) of the order. Ordinarily, if there was no
dispute between the societies and structure occupiers in the layout about
proportionate share of each of them in the R.G. and if such undisputed
PAGE NO. 13 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
numerical �gure was added by way of a corrigendum, the case would
have fallen in the exception recognised by this Court in Jaywant
Ramchandra Keni (supra). However, there appears to be serious dispute
between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1 about the numerical
�gure of proportionate share of Respondent No.1 now added by way of
Corrigendum.
18) By now it is well settled position that Competent Authority
becomes functus of�cio after passing of order of unilateral deemed
conveyance and cannot exercise jurisdiction to modify the order. This
law is repeatedly enunciated by this Court in Surya Corporation, M/s.
Aakansha Constructions Co. (supra), Kashish Park Reality Private
Limited (supra) and Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises CHSL
(supra). In view of settled position of law, it is not necessary to discuss
the ratio of those judgments and even Mr. Shah has fairly not disputed
the position that the Competent Authority neither has the power of
review nor can modify his order by way of issuance of a Corrigendum. Mr.
Shah has attempted to �t the present case into the exception recognized
by this Court in Jaywant Ramchandra Keni. However, as observed above,
if there was no dispute with regard to sharing of the R.G. area by the 4
buildings in the layout and if the objection was to be raised only by the
developer, what Mr. Shah contends could have been accepted by this
Court and this Court could have refused to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 227 merely because a Corrigendum is issued by the Competent
Authority. However, in the present case there is serious dispute between
the parties with regard to share of each building in the R.G. area. In that
view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to protect the Corrigendum
PAGE NO. 14 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
issued by the Competent Authority in which it has done adjudication of
dispute relating to proportionate share in the R.G. area. This power of re-
adjudication is obviously not vested in the Competent Authority. Under
the guise of mere re�ection of numerical value of the proportionate
share in the R.G. area, Competent Authority has entered into the realm
of dispute adjudication.
19) The fact that the Competent Authority has entered into the
realm of adjudication of dispute relating to proportionate share in the
R.G. is clear from the position taken by Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL before
the Competent Authority which is re�ected in para-7(c) of the impugned
order, which reads thus:
(c) They further contend that the new architect's certi�cate calculates
proportionate R.G. area rights erroneously based on plot area rather
than built-up area, and that the Applicant society (building A5) has
only 29.76% rights, equating to 323.21 sq. mirs.-not 463.38 sq. mtrs.
Exhibit B is referred to as support for this. They allege that it would be
unjust if the opponents are deprived of bene�ts of the R.G. area that
rightfully belong to them.
20) It is the contention of Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL that R.G.
area must be divided proportionate to the built-up area utilised in
construction of each of the buildings. According to Shree Rasraj Heights
CHSL, the entitlement of Respondent No.1 in the total land (11587.74
sq.mtrs) proportionate to built-up area of building A-5 of 3448.64
sq.mtrs is 29.76% as compared to entitlement of Shree Rasraj Heights
CHSL of 46.01%. Based on these land entitlements, Shree Rasraj Heights
CHSL believes that Respondent No.1 is entitled to proportionate share in
the R.G. area of only 323.21 sq.mtrs.
PAGE NO. 15 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
21) As opposed to the contention of Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL,
it is the contention of Respondent No.1-Society that it is entitled to
proportionate share of 463.38 sq.mtrs. in the RG. This entitlement is
determined by the Architect of Respondent No.1 by taking into
consideration plot area of Respondent No.1-Society of 2625.84 sq.mtrs
as against balance plot area of 3528.21 sq.mtrs remaining for A2, A3 and
4 buildings. Mr. Shah has taken pains to demonstrate before me that the
building of Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL is constructed by use of massive
TDR on account of which the principle of division of R.G. area in
proportion to the utilised built-up area cannot be followed in the present
case, as held by this Court in Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. It is the complaint of Respondent No. 1-Society that use of
massive TDR in construction of building of Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL
gives it undue advantage while applying the principle of land division
proportionate to the built-up area utilized in construction of each
building. It has contended that since the main land entitlement of
Respondent No. 1-Society is crystalized at 2625.84 sq. mtrs, it must
receive share in RG area proportionately.
22) The above rival positions taken by the two Societies leave no
manner of doubt that there was a serious dispute before the Competent
Authority in respect of entitlement of the buildings to share the R.G.
area. In my view, therefore this disputed question of fact could not have
been determined by the Competent Authority by exercising power of
issuance of Corrigendum. The Competent Authority has clearly entered
into the realm of exercising adjudicatory power and has not restricted
PAGE NO. 16 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
itself to merely correcting an arithmetical or clerical error. As held by
this Court in Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises CHSL, power to
correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors that have crept in due
to accidental slip or omission can legitimately be conceded to the
Competent Authority. In Surya Corporation also, this Court has held in
para-19 of the judgment that in a given case, this Court may not interfere
in a Corrigendum where the same merely seeks to correct an obvious
error in the certi�cate of unilateral deemed convenance with a view to
avoid any further litigation. The same principle is followed in Jaywant
Ramchandra Keni. However, the moment it is noticed that the
Competent Authority has traveled far beyond the scope of correcting the
obvious error arising out of accidental slip or omission, the Corrigendum
issued by the Competent Authority will have to be necessarily set aside
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
23) In the present case, entitlement for proportionate share of
Respondent No.1 in the R.G. area is not disputed by anyone. However,
the dispute is only about the exact area of proportionate share. That
dispute cannot be resolved by issuance of Corrigendum as it involves
adjudicatory exercise of power. In that view of the matter, the impugned
order dated 12 January 2026 is indefensible and needs to set aside.
24) Respondent No.1 would not be rendered remediless on
account of setting aside of order dated 12 January 2026. This Court has
repeatedly granted opportunity to the Societies to challenge original
order of deemed conveyance even after the Corrigendum is set aside. In
Surya Corporation this Court had granted liberty to challenge the
PAGE NO. 17 of 18
15 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-6008 OF 2026
original certi�cate of unilateral deemed conveyance. Similar course of
action was adopted in M/s. Aakansha Constructions Co., Kashish Park
Reality Private Limited, Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises CHSL,
as well as in B.K. Corporation. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 would be
at liberty to challenge order dated 4 May 2017 to the extent of non-
re�ection of its exact proportionate land entitlement in the RG area.
25) Writ Petitions accordingly succeed, and I proceed to pass the
following order:
(i) Order dated 12 January 2026 passed by the Competent
Authority is set aside.
(ii) Respondent No.1 shall however be at liberty to challenge
order dated 4 May 2017 passed by the Competent
Authority for the purpose of securing its exact land
entitlement in respect of the RG area. Such Petition, if
�led, shall be decided on its own merits without being
in�uenced by any observations made in the present order.
26) With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
PAGE NO. 18 of 18
15 JULY 2026
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Date:
2026.07.15
20:27:21
+0530
Legal Notes
Add a Note....