Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 9139 OF 2026

Beau Monde Plot No.1

Co-operative Housing Society

Through its authorized representative

Mr. Rajesh Patel …..Petitioner

: Versus :

1. District Deputy Registrar

2. M/s. The Modern Construction Co. Ltd.

3. E.M.C.C. CHS Ltd.

4. M/s. Brahma Kshtriya CHS Ltd. ….Respondents

Mr. Jash Gandhi with Ms. Dipti Gandhi and Mr. Atreya Tambe, for the

Petitioner.

Mr. Ramchandran Narayanan with Mr. Aayush Ramchandran i/b.

Narayanan & Narayanan, for Respondent No.3-Society.

Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for the State.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

JUDGMENT RESD. ON: 3 SEPTEMBER 2026.

JUDGMENT PRON. ON: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026.

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    1   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

JUDGMENT

1) The Petitioner-Society has �led the present Petition challenging

the order dated 6 March 2025 passed by the District Deputy Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4), (Competent Authority)

rejecting Application No. 159 of 2024 �led by it for seeking deemed

conveyance of the proportionate share in the layout land, as well as its

building.

2) Brie�y stated, facts of the case are that the original owners

executed Agreement for Sale of ‘Plot No.3’ admeasuring 3224.69 sq.mtrs

in favour of M/s. Modern Construction Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.2). On 18

August 1970, another Agreement for Sale was executed in respect of

adjoining ‘Plot No. 2’ admeasuring 3315.31 sq.mts. Respondent No. 2

constructed 5 buildings on Plot No. 3 and 5 buildings on Plot No.2. On 31

March 1971, the �at purchasers of the 10 buildings constructed on Plot

Nos. 2 and 3 formed Respondent No.3-Society. On 31 March 1971

conveyance was executed in favour of Respondent No.3-Society in

respect of Plots Nos. 2 and 3. There was one more plot i.e. ‘Plot No.1’ in

which Respondent No. 2 had rights. A Package Deal Agreement was

executed between Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3-Society on 25

September 1970 under which Respondent No.2 agreed to construct a

building on Plot No.1 and sell �ats therein subject to the condition that

�at purchasers of building on Plot No.1 would become the members of

Respondent No.3-Society. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 constructed a

building on Plot No.1 and sold the �ats therein to �at purchasers. It

appears that some of the �at purchasers applied to Respondent No.3-

Society for membership and they were granted membership by

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    2   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

Respondent No.3-Society. It appears that the �at purchasers of Building

No.1/Plot No.1 continued managing the affairs relating to the building

on their own through an ad-hoc committee where some of the �at

purchasers were already members of Respondent No.3. The �at

purchasers of Building No.1 applied for formation of a separate society

and accordingly on 4 December 2008, Petitioner-Society was registered

in respect of Building No.1. Petitioner-Society �led an application for

deemed conveyance before the Competent Authority on 3 July 2024.

However, by impugned order dated 6 March 2025, the application has

been rejected by the Competent Authority. The order dated 6 March 2025

is the subject matter of challenge in the Petition �led by the Petitioner-

Society.

3) Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

that the Competent Authority has grossly erred in rejecting Petitioner's

application for deemed conveyance. That there is a common layout

development in which buildings of Petitioner-Society and Respondent

No.3-Society are distinctly sanctioned. That as per the GR dated 22 June

2018, Petitioner-Society is entitled to seek conveyance of the

proportionate share in the land. That Petitioner-Society has been formed

and registered on 4 December 2008, and Respondent No.3-Society

cannot now raise the objections about registration of the Petitioner-

Society. That Respondent No.3-Society had given a no-objection for

redevelopment of Petitioner's building vide letter dated 4 April 2022

thereby accepting the factum of existence of a separate society. That the

Competent Authority has recorded erroneous �ndings while rejecting

the application of the Petitioner-Society. In support of his contention,

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    3   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

Mr. Gandhi relies on judgments of this Court in Veer Tower Co-

operative Housing Society Limited Versus. District Deputy Registrar,

Co-operative Societies and others

1

, Upvan Co-operative Housing

Society Limited Versus. M/s. Upvan Developers

2

and M/s. Blue

Heavens Co-operative Housing Society Limited Versus. M/s. Punit

Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

3

.

4) Mr. Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.3-Society, opposes the Petition submitting that the

Competent Authority has rightly rejected Petitioner's application for

deemed conveyance. That the contractual agreement between the

parties was that �at purchasers of Building No.1 needed to become

members of Respondent No.3-Society. He submits that several �at

purchasers of Building No.1 are in fact members of Respondent No.3-

Society. That the �at purchase agreements speci�cally stipulated

condition of becoming the members of Respondent No.3-Society. That

Building No.1 has been constructed by Respondent No.2 for Respondent

No.3 in terms of Agreement dated 25 September 1970, under which

Respondent No.3-Society alone is entitled to secure conveyance even in

respect of Building No.1 and the land on which the same is constructed.

5) Mr. Narayanan further submits that the Competent

Authority otherwise does not have jurisdiction to decide the application

for deemed conveyance �led by the Petitioner-Society. That what is

executed with �at purchasers of Building No.1 are not Section 4

Agreements. On the other hand, it is just an arrangement for cause of

1 WP No. 211 OF 2023 decided on 18 February 2025

2 WP No. 11551 OF 2025 decided on 15 June 2026

3 WP No. 2455 OF 2023 decided on 21 November 2024

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    4   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

construction by a developer at the behest of the society with contractual

obligation for �at purchasers of Building No.1 to become members of

Respondent No.3-Society. He submits that there is substantial delay in

�ling the Petition. That Respondent No.3-Society is always willing to

admit �at purchasers of Building No.1 as their members. That even

otherwise, the demand of Petitioner-Society for conveyance of land

admeasuring 2139.14 sq. mts. is without any basis as Building No.1 is

constructed on Plot No.1 which admeasures only 1219 sq.mts. He

submits that in similar circumstances where the land was already

conveyed to another society, this Court has set aside the order of deemed

conveyance passed by the Competent Authority in Deep Sadan Co-

operative Housing Society Limited Versus. The State of Maharashtra

and others

4

. He prays for dismissal of the petition.

6) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for

my consideration.

7) The case involves a unique circumstance where Plot Nos. 2

and 3 were initially taken up for development by Respondent No. 2 for

construction of 10 buildings (�ve on each plot). The �at purchasers of

those 10 buildings have formed Respondent No.3-Society, which has

already secured conveyance of the entire Plot Nos. 2 and 3 on 31 March

1971. Respondent No.3-Society decided to additionally acquire rights in

Plot No.1 from Respondent No. 2 on payment of consideration.

Accordingly Agreement dated 25 September 1970 was executed between

Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3-Society, under which

Respondent No.2 agreed to sell Plot No.1 to Respondent No.3-Society for

4 WP No. 3727 OF 2023 decided on 19 December 2025.

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    5   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

consideration. The consideration was payable partly in money and partly

by granting development rights in the plot to Respondent No. 2.

Therefore while agreeing to sell the plot, Respondent No.2 secured right

to construct a building on Plot No. 1 and to sell the �ats therein. Thus, a

composite arrangement was made on 25 September 1970, under which

Respondent No.3-Society agreed to acquire ownership in respect of Plot

No.1, but simultaneously granted development rights to Respondent

No.2 for construction of a building thereon.

8) Under the unique arrangement agreed between Respondent

Nos.2 and 3, a building was constructed on Plot No.1 and �ats therein

were sold to �at purchasers. It appears that in the �at purchase

agreements, the purchasers were speci�cally made aware that

Respondent No.2 had constructed the building for Respondent No.3-

Society, which is clear from the following recitals:

(2) The Vendor has constructed the said building in which the said �at

is located for one Emcace Co.operative Housing society Limited, but no

conveyance is yet executed by the Vendor in favour of the said society

since the society has not paid to the Vendor full purchase price.

9) The �at purchasers of building on Plot No. 1 agreed to

become members of Respondent No.3-Society, which is clear from the

following covenant in the �at purchase agreements:

At the time of receiving �nal payment of purchaser price of the said

�at, the Vendor shall hand over to the Purchaser an Instrument of

transfer duly signed by the Vendor to enable the Purchaser to become

member of the enable Emcace.Co.op.Housing society Ltd, The Vendor

shall also handover to the Purchaser the following.

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    6   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

10) It appears that several �at purchasers of the building

constructed on Plot No.1 actually became members of Respondent No.3-

Society. A copy of the share certi�cate issued in the name of Mr. M.K.P.

Iyengar by Respondent No.3-Society is produced on record. The

Respondent No.3-Society has also placed on record copies of some of the

subsequent transactions made by the �at purchasers of Building No.1 in

which what is sold is not just the �at, but also the transfer of

membership of Respondent No.3-Society.

11) It does appear that several �at purchasers of building

constructed on Plot No.1 did become members of Respondent No. 3-

Society. However, as stated by Mr. Narayanan himself in his written note

of submissions, purchasers of �ats in Building No.1 had apparently

formed an ad-hoc committee for managing the affairs relating to the

building, even though some of the �at purchasers were members of the

third Respondent-Society. On the other hand, in the Rejoinder �led on

behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that only few purchasers of the

building constructed on Plot No.1 had initially accepted membership of

the Respondent No.3-Society and that majority of �at purchasers opted

not to become members of Respondent No.3-Society.

12) Be that as it may. The �at purchasers of the building

constructed on Plot No.1 ultimately formed and registered their own

society (Petitioner-Society) on 4 December 2008. Respondent No.3 did not

challenge order dated 4 December 2008 by which Petitioner-Society was

formed and registered. In that sense, �at purchasers of the building

constructed on Plot No.1 can no longer be treated as members of

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    7   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

Respondent No.3-Society, who acquiesced in the formation of separate

society, qua the building constructed on Plot No.1.

13) Thus, the picture that emerges is as under:

(i) Plot No.1 admeasuring 1219 sq.mts in which the building

of Petitioner-Society is constructed.

(ii) Plot No.2 admeasuring 3315.31 sq.mts in which 5

buildings of Respondent No.3-Society are constructed.

(iii) Plot No.3 admeasuring 3324.69 sq.mts in which 5

buildings of Respondent No.3-Society are constructed.

14) The Competent Authority has rejected the application of the

Petitioner-Society by recording following �ndings:

a. It is observed that the applicant has not �led this application as per

the GR dated 22nd June, 2018. It is also observed that the applicant

society has not submitted approved building plan, I.O.D .,

Commencement Certi�cate and Occupation Certi�cate as per

requirement of GR dated 22/06/2018.

b. It is also observed that the applicant has not speci�ed the status of

Opponent No.3, M/s. Bramhakshtriya CHS Ltd. in their application.

c. It is also observed that the sample agreement submitted by the

applicant society with their application is unregistered. The contents

mentioned in the agreement have no basis, and it does not belong to

the applicant society. Speci�cally, the agreement states that the �at is

"located for Emcece Co-operative Housing Society Limited," indicating

that it is not related to the applicant society. Furthermore, the

applicant's agreement is not registered and does not comply with the

MOFA Act of 1963. Consequently, section 11 does not apply to the

applicant's application.

d. It is also observed that the Opponent No. 2. "Emcece Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd," is the owner of the land measuring 6840 square

meters from land bearing C.T.S. bearing No. 33/4, which measures

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    8   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

approximately 8059.50 square Meters in the Revenue V illage-

Chinchvali, Taluka-Borivali. The area claimed by the applicant society

is the layout land. Therefore, giving the Applicant Society Deemed

Conveyance will result in a signi�cant imbalance and complications in

the Opponent's Society's F.S.I. in the aforementioned suit plot. In spite

being aware of the dispute, the Applicant Society has not veri�ed how

the proposed deemed conveyance of the Applicant Society's Suit

Premises will prevent the imbalance of F.S.I. for other existing

buildings in the layout and all of the sub-divided plots in the layout. It

is also observed that the applicant has not clari�ed the objections

raised by the opponents in their reply. Therefore, in this case I am not

in position to give Deemed conveyance to Applicant society. 

e. It is observed that the Applicant society is standing on larger land

alongwith the Opponent No. 2 and the applicant society has not

clari�ed the area properly.

f. It has been also observed that the structure of the applicant society

has been integrated with the Adani Electricity substation which is

essential utility in the layout and can't be bifurcated as its shown

attached to the building of the applicant society and therefore, the

applicant society's area cannot be de�ned. 

15) Thus, the Competent Authority apparently got swayed by

the fact that Respondent No.3-Society claims ownership in respect of the

entire layout plan comprising of Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and that therefore it

is not possible to grant conveyance of any part of the land in favour of

the Petitioner-Society.

16) As observed above, the case involves unique circumstance

where Respondent No.3-Society became owner of Plot Nos.2 and 3 vide

conveyance dated 31 March 1971. It also decided to acquire ownership in

respect of land bearing Plot No.1 admeasuring 1219 sq.mts. It paid part

consideration to the land owner/Respondent No. 2 and an agreement

dated 25 September 1970 was executed. Part of the consideration was

also in the form of grant of development rights to Respondent No. 2-

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    9   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

Developer. It however appears that full consideration towards

conveyance was not paid by Respondent No.3-Society, which is apparent

from the above quoted recital no.2 in the �at purchase agreements.

Therefore, though agreement was executed with Respondent No.3-

Society for conveyance of the land, the actual conveyance did not take

place. As observed above, the Agreement dated 25 September 1970

envisaged composite arrangement of purchase of Plot No.1 by

Respondent No.3-Society while simultaneously granting development

rights in favour of Respondent No.2-Developer. The development rights

were granted in contemplation of Respondent No.3-Society acquiring

ownership rights in respect of Plot No.1. Ideally, the arrangement was

that �at purchasers of the building constructed on Plot No.1 ought to

have become members of Respondent No.3-Society and accordingly

conveyance for Plot No.1 would have been either contractually executed

in favour of Respondent No.3-Society by Respondent No.2 or

Respondent No.3-Society could have secured deemed conveyance of Plot

No.1 on account of sale of all �ats in the building constructed on Plot

No.1. However, the arrangement got disturbed when the �at purchasers

of building constructed on Plot No.1 did not desire to become members

of Respondent No.3-Society and formed and registered their own

cooperative housing society on 4 December 2008.

17) If Respondent No.3-Society believes that it alone is entitled

to own the entire land comprising of Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3 on account of

contractual stipulation for mandatory membership to the �at purchasers

of building constructed on Plot No.1, it ought to have opposed formation

and registration of Petitioner-Society. It could have challenged the order

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    10   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

of registration of Petitioner-Society. As observed above, Respondent

No.3 has however acquiesced in formation and registration of a separate

organization of �at purchasers. Once formation of separate organization

of �at purchasers of a building is accepted and acknowledged, what also

gets accepted and acknowledged is the right of such organization to seek

conveyance of the land and building. It cannot be that a separate

housing society is registered qua a building, but the ownership of that

building and the land beneath it would be with some other society. Such

an arrangement would give rise to an anomalous situation. Therefore,

the correct remedy for Respondent No.3-Society was to oppose

formation of Petitioner-Society. Even if the society was formed, there

was a remedy of �ling appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-

operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) challenging the order of

registration. If there was misrepresentation in registration of Petitioner-

Society, there was also a remedy under Section 21A of the MCS Act

seeking de-registration of the Petitioner-Society. Respondent No.3

however did not exercise any of the above remedies possibly because it

had no objection about formation of the Petitioner-Society. This is also

apparent from the conduct exhibited by Respondent No.3-Society. It

appears that Respondent No.3-Society decided to go for redevelopment

of its buildings. It called upon the Petitioner-Society to participate in

joint redevelopment process with Respondent No.3-Society.

Accordingly, a letter dated 4 April 2022 was addressed to the Petitioner-

Society, which reads thus :

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    11   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

Date April 4, 2022

To,

The Managing Committee

Attn: Chairman/ Secretary

Beaumonde CHS. LTD. Plot-A

Respected Sir,

We refer to the Resolution passed in the AGM at The EMCECE Co-Op.

Housing Society Ltd., Unit No. A & B held on 13-03-2022.

Resolution: - It is unanimously resolved at the AGM that further three

months' time be and is given to get the consent of Beaumonde CHS.

LTD., for joining and participating in the process of redevelopment

along with The EMCECE Co Op. Housing Society Ltd., failing which it

will be deemed that Beaumonde CHS. LTD. has no intension to join

with our society for redevelopment of the building and have no

objection to redevelopment of building of  and have no objection to

redevelopment of The EMCECE Co Op. Housing Society Ltd., Unit A &

B. 

In response to above resolution, you are requested to convey your

consent to The EMCECE Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd Unit A & B on or

before three months period is lapsed.

Kindly do the needful and reply before 13 June 2022

Thanks and Regards,

The EMCECE Co Op. Housing Society Ltd.

18) Thus, far from questioning the registration of the

Petitioner-Society, Respondent No.3-Society admitted its valid existence

and called upon the Petitioner to join the process of redevelopment with

Respondent No.3-Society. This conduct again exhibits an

acknowledgment of the position of valid existence of the Petitioner-

Society.

19) Having accepted and acknowledged the fact that Petitioner-

Society can exist qua building constructed on Plot No.1, Respondent

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    12   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

No.3 cannot deny or dispute right of the Petitioner to own the building,

as well as the land required for its sustenance.

20) In my view therefore, mere agreement executed with

Respondent No.2-Developer to acquire conveyance in respect of Plot

No.1 by Respondent No.3-Society cannot defeat the lawful right of

Petitioner-Society to seek conveyance of land and the building. Even if

Respondent No.3-Society was to be an owner of the land bearing Plot

No.1, the same would still have made no difference qua right of

Petitioner-Society to seek conveyance of the land and building. In those

circumstances, Respondent No.3-Society would have assumed

obligations of a promoter since it caused construction of the building on

Plot No.1 through Respondent No.2. It is not necessary to go that far in

the present case as Respondent No.3 has not acquired ownership of the

land bearing Plot No.1. It owns only Plot Nos.2 and 3 and there is neither

a contractual conveyance executed nor an order of deemed conveyance is

passed in favour of Respondent No.3-Society qua Plot No.1.

21) Once it is established that Petitioner has the right to secure

independent conveyance in its favour, the next issue for consideration is

about the exact area of land which can be conveyed in favour of the

Petitioner-Society. The plans for construction of all 11 buildings were

approved by the Municipal Corporation on 14 December 1971. The case

therefore does not involve three separate sanctions qua Plot Nos.1, 2 and

3. A layout development was carried out in respect of the three plots by

sanction of a common plan on 14 December 1971. In that sense, the

individuality of Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3 is lost and the entire layout land is

subjected to a common housing scheme. Therefore, the principle of

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    13   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

proportionate land division as envisaged in GR dated 22 June 2018 would

get attracted in the present case. Though Respondent No.3 contends that

building of Petitioner-Society is constructed only on Plot No.1,

conveyance cannot be restricted to the Petitioner only in respect of Plot

No.1 admeasuring 1219 sq.mts. Even though Respondent No.3 was made

owner of Plot Nos.2 and 3, it granted and recognized rights in favour of

Respondent No.2-Developer to have a common layout plan sanctioned in

respect of Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3. The Agreement between Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 was executed on 25 September 1970 and thereafter a

common plan for all the three plots was sanctioned by the Municipal

Corporation on 14 December 1971. Thus, the BUA/FSI required for

construction of building of Petitioner-Society is not restricted only to

Plot No.1 admeasuring 1219 sq.mts. It has also consumed FSI from Plot

Nos.2 and 3. As observed above, with sanction of a common plan for all

the three plots, the individuality of Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3 was lost. The plan

for construction of Petitioner's building was not separately sanctioned

only qua Plot No.1. It is a common layout development. Therefore,

Petitioner-Society is entitled to secure a conveyance of a proportionate

land area forming part of the entire layout.

22) The Architect of the Petitioner has conducted the exercise of

proportionate land division by taking into consideration the plan

approved by MCGM on 14 December 1971. As per the Architec t's

Certi�cate dated 27 June 2024, the total area of Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3 was

8632.77 sq.mts. out of which land admeasuring 505.51 sq.mts. and

184.48 sq.mts. were acquired for roads leaving behind balance plot area

of 7942.78 sq.mts. The developer was granted FSI bene�t for road set-

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    14   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

back area of 789.99 sq.mts. and accordingly, the total BUA sanctioned on

the basis of FSI 1.00 was 8632.77 sq.mts. The total BUA of 8632.77 sq.

mts was divided into the buildings as under:

(i) Building of Petitioner-Society (Plot No.1)-2174.56 sq.mts.

(ii)Buildings of Respondent No.3-Society (Plot No.2)-3290.05

sq.mts.

(iii)Buildings of Respondent No.3-Society(Plot No. 3)-3429.75

sq.mts.

23) The Architect has accordingly determined proportionate

percentage share in the BUA of the two societies as under:

(i) share of Petitioner's building in the total BUA-24.45%.

(ii) share of Respondent No.3 in the total BUA-36.99% + 38.56%

24) Accordingly, the Architect has determined the proportionate

land entitlement of Petitioner-Society as under:

(i) share in the land-1970.45 sq.mts.

(ii) share in the area of 44 ft Road-123.59 sq.mts.

(iii) share in area OF S.V. Road-45.10 sq.mts.

25) Accordingly, the Architect has concluded that the

proportionate share of Petitioner-Society in the layout land is as under:

Therefore, Area to be considered for Conveyance in favor of "BEAU

MONDE PLOT NO. 1 CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED" is

1970.45 Sq. mts, from land bearing Plot No. 1 (old), Plot No. 1, 2 & 3

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    15   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

(new), land bearing C.T.S: No. 33/4 of Village Chinchavli, Taluka

Borivali, City Survey Of�ce Malad of Mumbai Suburban District. And

FSI advantage of 44-0" Road Area admeasuring 123.59 Sq. mts. out of

505.51 Sq. mts, & S. V. Road Area admeasuring 45.10 Sq. mts, out of

184.48 Sq. mts. as per Approved Plan.

26) In my view, the exercise carried out by the Architect appears

to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to secure

conveyance of land admeasuring 1970.45 sq. mts. in addition to FSI

advantage of 123.59 sq. mts. and 45.10 sq. mts. for road advantage.

27) As observed above, the Petitioner would be entitled to

conveyance of the main land admeasuring 1970.45 sq. mts + FSI

advantage in respect of roads of 123.59 sq. mts + 45.10 sq. mts (total area

admeasuring 2139.14 sq. mts) which exceeds the area of Plot No.1 of 1219

sq.mts. Thus, granting conveyance of proportionate land in favour of the

Petitioner-Society eats into the ownership rights of Respondent No. 3-

Society in respect of Plot Nos.2 and 3. However, as observed above, the

individuality of Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stood extinguished upon they being

subjected to a common housing scheme pursuant to the sanction of a

common plan dated 14 December 1971.

28) In fact, the arrangement whereby Respondent No. 3-Society

acquired rights in Plot No. 1 and granted development rights therein to

Respondent No. 2 was apparently agreed for execution of common layout

development across all the three plots. If Respondent No. 2 was to

remain the owner of Plot No. 1, he would have been required to submit a

separate plan for construction of Building No. 1. The chronology of

events needs to be appreciated in order to understand the exact reason

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    16   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

why a composite arrangement was made by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 qua

Plot No. 1:

25 September 1970 Package Deal Agreement between

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 qua Plot No. 1

31 March 1971 Conveyance of Plot Nos. 2 and 3 to

Respondent No. 3 society

With conveyance dated 31 March 1971

and Package Deal Agreement dated 25

September 1970, Respondent No. 3

claimed ownership of all the three Plot

Nos. 1,2 and 3 and decided to submit

common layout plan for all the three

plots.

14 December 1971 Sanction of common layout plan for Plot

Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Thus, the arrangement of Respondent No. 3 acquiring rights in all the

three plots, namely of Plot Nos. 1,2 and 3 was made only for ensuring

that a common plan could be sanctioned in respect of all the three plots.

This is how a common plan was sanctioned in the name of Respondent

No. 3 society for layout development. Upon sanction of such common

layout plan, the individuality of the plots got lost as FSI/BUA utilized for

construction of buildings no longer remained con�ned to individual

plots and gross FSI arising out of all the three plots was distributed

amongst the 11 buildings constructed under the layout development.

This is how, for FSI computations, the area of the three plots is taken

into consideration and thereafter the total BUA of 8632.77 sq.mts. is

distributed in construction of buildings of both the societies.

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    17   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

29) If building of Petitioner was to be constructed only on Plot

No.1 admeasuring 1219 sq.mts., it would not have secured BUA of

2174.56 sq.mts. Its BUA would have been con�ned only to 1219 sq.mts.

based on FSI 1.00. However, what has been done in the present case is to

subject all the three plots to a common plan for the purpose of

generation of BUA out of area of all three plots. Therefore, building of

Petitioner-Society does not have any connection with or identity as part

of Plot No.1 alone. It may have come up through the unique agreement

executed with Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 25 September 1970. However,

Respondent No.3-Society permitted the developer to construct the

building of Petitioner-Society on the basis of common plan in respect of

all the three plots. Having done so, Respondent No.3-Society cannot now

turn around and contend that conveyance to Petitioner-Society needs to

be restricted only to an area of Plot No.1. If building of Petitioner-

Society was to be constructed only on Plot No.1, Respondent No.3-

Society ought to have objected to sanction of common plan and also

ought to have objected to utilization of any FSI �owing out of Plot Nos.2

and 3 for construction of the building of Petitioner-Society. They did not

do so and allowed sanction of a common layout plan possibly out of

expectation that the building which was being constructed was for the

bene�t of Respondent No.3-Society and that all the �at purchasers

therein would ultimately become members of Respondent No.3-Society.

This expectation of the third Respondent-Society however got destroyed

when a separate cooperative society was registered on 4 December 2008.

This is the reason why I have repeatedly held that the real remedy for

Respondent No.3-Society was to oppose formation of Petitioner-Society

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    18   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

by taking necessary steps where by it could have either challenged the

order of registration of Petitioner-Society or could have sought its de-

registration under Section 21A if there was any misrepresentation. Now

it is too late in a day to mount a challenge to formation of Petitioner-

Society in collateral proceedings �led for deemed conveyance by the

Petitioner-Society.

30) In the present case thus, Respondent No. 3 society accepted

and acknowledged two main factors viz. (i) submission and sanction of

common plan for construction of all the buildings on Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3,

thereby agreeing for building of Petitioner-Society consuming the FSI

�owing out of Plot Nos.2 and 3 and (ii) formation and registration of

Petitioner-Society. Having accepted and acquiesced in the said two

factors, Respondent No.3-Society must also accept the consequence of

its actions. The consequence is that the Petitioner-Society has a right to

secure conveyance of a proportionate share in the layout land.

31) In view of the foregoing discussion, which clearly

establishes the right of the Petitioner-Society to secure conveyance of

proportionate share in the land forming part of the layout, it is not

necessary to burden this judgment by discussing the ratio of the

judgments in Veer Tower Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Upvan

Co-operative Housing Society Limited and M/s. Blue Heavens Co-

operative Housing Society relied upon by Mr. Gandhi. The present case

involves peculiar circumstances as discussed above. Here, in respect of

Plot No. 1, both Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 assumed the obligations of a

promoter. Though Respondent No. 3-Society had agreed to purchase the

land (and even if it is assumed that it acquired ownership of Plot No. 1), it

____________________________________________________________________________

                  PAGE  NOS.    19   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

acted like a typical land-purchaser and granted development rights for

construction of building for itself. Since construction is caused by

Respondent No. 3-Society, it became a promoter qua that building. The

Respondent No.3 assumed obligations of being a promoter since it

allowed the developer to consume FSI �owing out of Plot Nos.2 and 3 for

the purpose of construction of building on Plot No.1. As a landowner, it

submitted common plans in respect of Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3 for a layout

development. Since Respondent No.3-Society permitted FSI of Plot

Nos.2 and 3 to be consumed on building to be constructed on Plot No.1,

it automatically took over the obligation to convey some portion of land

in Plot Nos.2 and 3 in favour of organisation of �at purchasers in respect

of Building constructed on Plot No.1. In any case, distinct identity of Plot

Nos.1, 2 and 3 got lost in the unique facts of the present case. So far as

ownership is concerned, Respondent No.3 was clear owner in respect of

Plot Nos.2 and 3 and half-baked owner in respect of Plot No.1. It caused

construction of the building in respect of which Petitioner-Society was

formed and registered. In these circumstances, not just Respondent

No.2-Developer, but also Respondent No.3-Society needs to ful�ll the

obligations under Section 11 to convey its right, title and interest in the

land in favour of the Petitioner-Society.

32) In my view, therefore Petitioner-Society is entitled to

receive conveyance in respect of land admeasuring 1970.45 sq.mts and

FSI advantage in respect of roads of 123.59 sq.mts and 45.10 sq.mts. The

Competent Authority has egregiously erred in rejecting Petitioner's

application for deemed conveyance. The proceedings therefore deserve

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    20   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP.9139 OF 2026.docx

to be remanded to the Competent Authority for the purpose of issuance

of certi�cate of deemed conveyance.

33) The Petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the

following order:

(i) Order dated 6 March 2025 passed by the Competent

Authority in Application No.159 of 2024 is set aside.

(ii) Application No. 159 of 2024 is remanded to the Competent

Authority for the purpose of issuance of certi�cate of

deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 1970.45 sq.mts

and FSI advantage in respect of roads of 123.59 sq.mts and

45.10 sq.mts in favour of the Petitioner-Society.

(iii) The Competent Authority shall accordingly proceed to issue

certi�cate of deemed conveyance in favour of the

Petitioner-Society as directed above as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of 4 months.

(iv) Parties shall appear before the Competent Authority on 30

September 2026 and seek further directions for �xation of

date(s) of hearing in the remanded proceedings.

34) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.

There shall be no orders as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

____________________________________________________________________________

                   PAGE  NOS.    21   of   21                          

  21 September 2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally signed by

NEETA SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date: 2026.09.21

20:28:21 +0530