1) The Petitioner-Chandrabhaga Co-operative Housing Society Limited (the Society) has filed the present Petition challenging orders dated 28 July 2014, 22 November 2016 and 18 February 2026 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai (1) City and Competent Authority (Competent Authority) rejecting its applications for deemed conveyance of the land and building.

2) The land bearing CTS Survey No.-1262-A, admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. situated at Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai was originally owned by late Mr. Vitthal Vishwanath Todankar. The land had scattered tenements called as Todankar Chawl comprising of 20 tenanted structures with common toilet. There was another ground plus two-story structure named Vishwalakshmi Building, in which also, there were 13 tenants of late Mr. Vitthal Todankar (the owner). The owner decided to redevelop the land while retaining the structure of Vishwalakshmi building. However, he expired on 16 November 1981. His wife, late Smt. Chandrabhaga Todankar, and two sons late Mr. Dashrath and late Mr. Rohidas (Todankars) alongwith others entered into a partnership on 22 March 1982 in the name and style as M/s. Sanket Builders for redevelopment of the land. Accordingly, the Firm undertook construction of the building comprising of two wings of ground plus five floors and ground plus four floors. The said developer entered into agreements with flat purchasers and sold various flats in the building. The building was constructed by retaining other tenanted structure by name Vishwalakshmi Building. In the new building, residents of the 20 scattered tenements were accommodated in ‘B’ wing for which occupancy certificates were issued on 23 August 1984 and for sale component ‘A’ wing building the occupancy certificate was issued on 25 January 1986. According to the Petitioner -Society, the entire FSI potential in respect of the land has been exhausted by construction of ‘A’ and ‘B’ wings of the new building -Chandrabhaga Co-operative Housing Society Limited. According to the Petitioner- Society the 13 tenants of Vishwalakshmi building were to be admitted as members of the Petitioner-Society.

3) Since conveyance in respect of the land and the new building was not executed in favour of the Petitioner-Society, Application No. 73 of 2013 was filed by the Petitioner-Society before the Competent Authority on 6 September 2013. The Application came to be rejected by order dated 28 July 2014 citing pendency of Suit No. 3598 of 2013. The Society filed fresh application for deemed conveyance, which was again rejected by order dated 22 November 2016 on the ground of principle of res judicata. The Society challenged second order of rejection dated 22 November 2016 by filing Writ Petition No. 8706 of 2017 before this Court and has also filed Civil Suit No.1114 of 2020 before the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai inter-alia seeking conveyance of land and building. However, Writ Petition was withdrawn on 21 April 2021 and the Civil Suit was withdrawn on 7 June 2021. The Petitioner-Society thereafter filed fresh application for deemed conveyance on 29 January 2021, which was apparently rejected and date of rejection is not disclosed by the Petitioner. In the meantime, the Society adopted resolution dated 13 January 2018 for admission of tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as its members upon payment of amount equivalent to 120 months’ rent. Accordingly, the said tenants were admitted as members of the Petitioner-Society. Heirs of late Vitthal Todankar have instituted Suit No.1207 of 2018 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, challenging the said action of the Society. Similarly, another Suit No. 4551 of 2024 is instituted before the City Civil Court by the heirs of Vitthal Todankar questioning ownership rights of tenants of Vishwalakshmi building.

4) In the above background, the Petitioner-Society filed fourth Application being Application No.30 of 2025 seeking conveyance of land and building before the Competent Authority. By the impugned order dated 18 February 2026, the Competent Authority has once again rejected the Application for deemed conveyance filed by the Petitioner-Society.

5) Dr. Saraf, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner-Society submits that the Competent Authority has erred in rejecting the Application of the Petitioner-Society for deemed conveyance by entering into the issue of right of M/s. Sanket Builders to develop the land. That the said issue is outside the scope of enquiry to be conducted by the Competent Authority. That rejection of first Application for deemed conveyance in the year 2014 is clearly erroneous. That mere pendency of the Suit No.3598 of 2013 could not have been a reason for rejection of the Application for deemed conveyance. That the second and fourth impugned orders is the reiteration of the first order. Fourth order also cites the pretext of pendency of two Civil Suits for rejection of Application for deemed conveyance. He relies on judgment of this Court in New Manoday Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. Uday Madhavrao Jagtap and Ors.(2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1217) in support of his contention that the Competent Authority cannot go into the issue of title.

6) Dr. Saraf further submits that Agreement for Sale executed with the flat purchasers clearly envisaged conveyance of the entire land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. That no portion of land is carved out in respect of the Vishwalakshmi building. That on the contrary, Agreement for Sale contemplates admission of tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as members of the Society. That the Society has admittedly made the said tenants members and the Respondents have not questioned their admission as members. He therefore submits that the tenants of Vishwalakshmi building are now members of the Society and therefore, entire land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. must be conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-Society.

7) Mr. Ghosalkar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.6 to 8 opposes the Petition submitting that the Petitioner-Society has filed as many as four applications for grant of deemed conveyance. That it is impermissible to file successive applications for same cause of action. That the second, third and fourth applications were clearly barred by principle of res judicata. That the Petitioner-Society cannot be permitted to question correctness of first order of rejection dated 28 July 2014 by filing the Petition in the year 2026. Without prejudice, he submits that there are serious disputes relating to title as well as tenancy in the present case and that therefore, the Competent Authority can otherwise not exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). He submits that there are two Suits filed by Respondent Nos.6 to 8, which are pending before the City Civil Court and in the light of pendency of those Suits, the Competent Authority has rightly rejected the Applications for deemed conveyance. That even otherwise, the Society has erroneously admitted tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as its members without the consent of the land owners /landlords. He submits that the Agreement for Sale executed with flat purchasers does not contemplate automatic admission of tenants as members. That such admission of tenants as members was supposed to be effected after payment of consideration by the tenants to the owners before formation of the Society. That since such payments are not made, the owners have not consented for admission of tenants as members. That the case involves indirect conversion of tenancy rights into ownership rights by seeking conveyance of land and the building.

8) Without prejudice to the above objections, Mr. Ghosalkar fairly submits that his clients are willing to convey proportionate share in the land and building in favour of the Petitioner-Society by excluding the portion meant for Vishwalakshmi building. He places on record the sanctioned plan in support of his contention that while sanctioning plans for building of Petitioner-Society, the built-up area consumed in construction of Vishwalakshmi was excluded. That therefore proportionate land division can be undertaken on the basis of the sanctioned plan.

9) Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.21 to 26 also opposes the Petition submitting that his clients also have rights in the land. He submits that late Vitthal Todankar has executed Indenture of Mortgage dated 25 October 1969 in favour of Anant Vishram Nagwekar (predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.21 to 26) and had secured a loan. That the Mortgage Deed has been registered on 27 October 1969. He therefore, submits that the building has been unauthorisedly constructed on the land, which is mortgaged to the predecessor-in-title of his clients. He submits that the alleged admission of re-conveyance shown to have been executed on 30 January 1987 is fraudulent. He therefore, submits that since his clients also have rights in the land, the same cannot be conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-Society. He prays for dismissal of the Petition.

10) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for my consideration.

11) It must be observed at the very outset that the case involves filing of as many as four applications for deemed conveyance by the Petitioner-Society. The first Application No.73 of 2013 was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 28 July 2014. Ordinarily, the Society ought to have challenged order dated 28 July 2014. Instead of doing so, it filed second application for deemed conveyance bearing No. DC-1002483/2016 once again seeking conveyance of land and building. Filing of the second application was clearly erroneous in view of application of principle of res judicata in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd Versus. District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society and others.(2025 (5) SCC 772) Nonetheless, the Competent Authority entertained the second application for deemed conveyance and proceeded to reject the same holding that the Petitioner-Society did not demonstrate any new grounds in the second application and proceeded to reject the same by order dated 22 November 2016. Thereafter the Petitioner- Society filed third application for deemed conveyance on 29 January 2021, which has also been rejected, details whereof are not pleaded in the Petition. The Society thereafter filed fourth application for deemed conveyance bearing No.30 of 2025 after admission of tenants of Vishwalakshmi building and once again sought deemed conveyance of entire land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. The Competent Authority has again rejected the fourth application for deemed conveyance by order dated 18 February 2026. This Court does not appreciate the conduct on the part of the Petitioner-Society in filing repeated applications for deemed conveyance. In order to overcome the objection of res judicata, the Petitioner-Society has challenged all the three orders dated 28 July 2014, 22 November 2016 and 18 February 2026 in the present Petition.

12) Ordinarily, this Court would not have entertained the present Petition since the last order of rejection dated 18 February 2026 passed by the Competent Authority cites the reason of passing of first order dated 28 July 2014 and second order on 22 November 2016. However, since the Petitioner has challenged even orders dated 28 July 2014, 22 November 2016 and considering the broader objective of granting conveyance to societies under the MOFA, I propose to entertain the Petition on merits rather than dismissing the same on technical reasons. As observed above, even the first and second orders viz., 28 July 2014 and 22 November 2016 are under challenge in the present Petition. Obviously, there is substantial delay in raising the challenge to the said orders. However, considering the fact that the Petitioner was pursuing the cause for conveyance of land and building before the Competent Authority right till 18 February 2026, I am inclined to ignore the objection of delay and laches and proceed to decide the Petition on merits.

13) The case involves a situation where there were scattered tenements (20 in numbers) as well as a tenanted building viz., Vishwalakshmi with 13 tenants on the plot admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. The original owner took up for construction of a building on the plot for accommodation of 20 scattered tenements and also for sale component flats. However, since the 13 tenants were already in another building the same was not demolished and its existence has continued. While retaining Vishwalakshmi building, the heirs of late Vitthal Vishwanath Todankar formed a partnership firm by name M/s. Sanket Builders. M/s. Sanket Builders constructed a new building on the balance plot of land in accordance with plan sanctioned on 28 December 1987. The flats in the new building were sold by M/s. Sanket Builders by executing Agreements under Section 4 of the MOFA. One such Agreement for Sale dated 19 August 1984 executed between M/s. Sanket Builders and flat purchaser- Sudita Anant Surve is placed on record. The recital the said Agreement records as under:-

                    AND WHEREAS on the said plot a building known as ‘Vishwalakshmi building houses 12 tenants and whereas the tenants of the said ‘Vishwalakshmi’ building have agreed to continue to be the tenants of the proposed co.operative housing society/Limited company to be formed by the flat holder of the building subject to an option to be exercised prior to formation of co.operative Society/Limited company to become members/share holders of the proposed co.operative society/limited company on payment of such amount to the builders, as may be agreed upon by and between them and the builders. And whereas the Builders propose to sell the remaining flats and shops on ownership basis with a view ultimately that the owners of the said flats and shops would form themselves into co.operative housing Society /Limited company in which the tenants of ‘Vishwalakshmi building’ be the tenants of the said society.

                    (Emphasis added)

14) The conveyance clause in the Agreement is as under:-

                    31. After the building is completed and ready and fit for occupation and after the society or limited company or incorporated body is incorporated and registered, the builders shall cause the Owners and other necessary parties to execute an Indenture of Conveyance in favour of the said Society or Limited Company or Incorporated Body and the Builders agree to join in such Conveyance as Confirming Party, if necessary. The Builders shall be entitled to incorporated in the Conveyance the rights reserved to them under this Agreement or to require the society or limited company or incorporated body to execute a seperate Deed granting to the Builders the aforesaid rights and to get such deed registered.

The schedule in the Agreement for Sale includes entire land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. on final plot No.1262(A).

15) The Agreement for Sale thus envisaged conveyance of entire land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. in favour of organisation of flat purchasers in the new building. However, the land included structure named as Vishwalakshmi building, which had 13 tenants. Therefore, an arrangement was made where the tenants were to pay consideration to the developer, upon which they were to be admitted as members of organisation formed by the flat purchasers. Thus, the Agreement contemplated conversion of tenancy into ownership upon payment of consideration by the tenants to the land owners, after which they were to be admitted as members of the Petitioner-Society.

16) The flat purchasers as well as the 20 scattered tenants have formed Petitioner-Society. However, before formation of the Society, it appears that the tenants of Vishwalakshmi building did not pay consideration to M/s. Sanket Builders and therefore, they continued to be tenants of original land owners. Thus, when first application for deemed conveyance was made by the Petitioner-Society, in the year 2013, the land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. had on it building of the Petitioner-Chandrabhaga Society in which occupants are owners and Vishwalakshmi building, in which occupants were tenants.

17) Dr. Saraf contends that above referred difficulty was resolved by the Petitioner by admitting the tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as its members by passing resolution in Special General Meeting held on 30 January 2018, by accepting payment of amount equivalent to 120 months rents. It is the case of the Petitioner-Society that all the tenants of Vishwalakshmi building are already admitted as members of the Petitioner-Society. Additionally, Dr. Saraf had relied on letter dated 8 October 1996 allegedly issued by Smt. Chandrabhaga, Dashrath and Rohidas Todankar admitting that the tenants of Vishwalakshmi building would be tenants of the Society. According to Dr. Saraf said letter amounts to attornment of tenancy. The Petitioner-Society therefore claims capacity as landlord in respect of Vishwalakshmi building for the purpose of admitting the tenants as its members.

18) Todankars are however, aggrieved by the action of the Society admitting tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as its members and has accordingly instituted Suit No.1207 of 2018 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai, which contains following prayers:-

                    a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that that the ownership rights assigned to the Defendant no 2 to 12 of their respective premises in their possession by the Defendant no 1 society by accepting 120 months gross rent is blatantly illegal, bad in law and not binding on the Plaintiffs.

                    b) That the Defendant no 2 to 12 be restrained by an order of permanent injunction from not acting on the said ownership rights assigned to them by the Defendant no 1 of their respective premises and further restrain them from creating any third party rights in their respective premises in their possession.

                    c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit this Ho Court shall temporarily restrain the Defendants no 2 to 12 from not acting the said ownership rights assigned to them by the Defendant no 1 of 1 respective premises and further restrain them from creating any third p rights in their respective premises in their possession.

                    d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit the Defendant no 1 society be also restrained from taking any decision of any nature whatsoever pertaining to the tenements in possession of the Defendant no 2 to 12 based on the said ownership rights granted to them nor shall deal with the defendant no 2 to 12 in respect of their tenancy rights.

                    e) Ad interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d) be granted.

                    f) Cost of the Suit be provided for.

                    g) Any other reliefs as deems fit and proper be granted.

19) Thus, Todankars are aggrieved by action of the Petitioner-Society in admitting tenants of Vishwalakshmi building without the consent of the land owners /Todankars. Another Suit No. 4551 of 2024 is apparently filed by Todankars against the Petitioner-Society seeking following prayers:-

                    a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that that the Defendant has no any right, title and interest in the whole of the suit property being survey number 34 F.P.No 1262 (A) of Mahim admeasuring about 1463.39 sqmtrs along with the building name "Vishwalakshmi" occupied by the tenants and Plaintiffs family, situated at A.V. Nagwekar Marg Mahim Mumbai 400 025.

                    b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further declare that the Defendant cannot claim right over the entire suit property but has limited right to the extent of land beneath the two buildings owned by the Defendant named "Chandrabhaga" admeasuring about 278 sqmtrs out of the suit property being survey number 34 F.P.No 1262 (A) of Mahim total admeasuring about 1463.39 sqmtrs situated at A.V.Nagwekar Marg Mahim Mumbai 400 025.

                    c) This Hon'ble court be pleased to grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendant their managing committee members, their successors, administrators and their assign from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property being survey number 34 F.P.No 1262 (A) of Mahim admeasuring about 1463.39 sqmtrs along with the building name "Vishwalakshmi" occupied by the tenants and Plaintiffs family, situated at A.V. Nagwekar Marg Mahim Mumbai 400 025.

                    d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit the Defendant their managing committee members, their successors, administrators and their assign be temporarily restrained by an order of this Hon'ble Court from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property being survey number 34 F.P.No 1262 (A) of Mahim admeasuring about 1463.39 sqmtrs along with the building name "Vishwalakshmi" occupied by the tenants and Plaintiffs family and open garage, situated at A.V.Nagwekar Marg Mahim Mumbai 400 016.

                    e) Ad interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (d) be granted.

                    f) Cost of the suit be provided for.

                    g) Any other reliefs as deems fit and proper be granted.

20) Thus, there appears to be serious dispute between the parties with regard to the admission of tenants of Vishwalakshmi building by the Petitioner-Society. It is the case of the Todankars/land owners that admission of tenants as members of Society would virtually tantamount to conversion of their tenancy rights into ownership rights and divesting of rights of Todankars in respect of proportionate land as well as Vishwalakshmi building. The payment for admission as members were to be made to the landowners and not to the society. However, I do not wish to delve deeper into the aspect of legality of admission of tenants as members. The Competent Authority, in limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of the MOFA, cannot obviously go into the issue of validity of admission of tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as members of Petitioner-Society.

21) It clearly appears that though building of the Petitioner-Society was constructed by Todankars by becoming partners of M/s. Sanket Builders, they had retained presence of Vishwalakshmi building on the plot. This is clear from sanctioned plan dated 28 December 1987. The plan is in respect of the entire land admeasuring 1463.25 sq.mtrs. for which FSI of 1.33 was sanctioned and permissible BUA was 1946.31 sq.mtrs. From said permissible BUA of 1946.31 sq.mtrs, BUA admeasuring above 1409 sq.mtrs was to be used for construction of Chandrabhaga building (Petitioner) by retaining BUA of about 537 sq.mtrs for Vishwalakshmi building. Copy of the plan placed on record by Mr. Ghosalkar is slightly illegible and therefore, this Court has taken into consideration the approximate figures, which would not be final or binding. The Plan is essentially taken into consideration for recording a finding that BUA for Vishwalakshmi building was excluded while undertaking construction of Chandrabhaga building. Todankars remained owners in respect of Vishwalakshmi building with occupants thereof being their tenants. Therefore Todankars would also be entitled to ownership of land qua Vishwalakshmi Building.

22) So far as opposition by Respondent Nos.21 to 26 is concerned, their objection is based on the alleged Deed of Mortgage dated 25 October 1969 executed by late Mr. Vitthal Todankar in favour of Anant Vishram Nagwekar, predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.21 to 26. It is the case of the Petitioner-Society that Mortgage Deed has been redeemed and the land has been reconveyed in favour of Todankars vide Deed of Reconveyance dated 30 January 1987. Respondent Nos.21 to 26 question genuineness of said Deed of Reconveyance dated 30 January 1987. In my view, however, the dispute sought to be created by Respondent Nos.21 to 26 cannot come in the way of the Competent Authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 (3) of the MOFA. If Respondent Nos.21 to 26 indeed have any right in the land, they ought to have prevented the developer from constructing the building on the land. They have allowed the building to be constructed, flats to be sold and the Society to be formed. The promoter is under statutory obligation to convey the land and building in favour of organisation of flat purchasers. So far Respondent Nos.21 to 26 have not filed any legal proceedings for establishment of their rights qua the land. It is well settled principle that conveyance of land under Section 11 of MOFA is not final determinative of rights and entitlement of parties in respect of the conveyed land and aggrieved person can always file a Suit and seek a declaration of title in respect of land conveyed in favour of the Society. Accordingly, Respondent Nos.21 to 26 shall be at liberty to establish their rights qua the land by filing appropriate Suit.

23) In view of the above position, the ideal solution to the problem is to undertake proportionate sub-division of land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs. in respect of Chandrabhaga Society and Vishwalakshmi building. This exercise would ensure that rights claimed by Todankars in respect of Vishwalakshmi building are not affected and at the same time, the Petitioner-Society is able to undertake redevelopment of its building in respect of proportionate share in the land. The Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 envisages proportionate land division in the event of location of multiple structures in common layout. Present case also involves development of layout land envisaging proportionate division of the land in respect of structures as per the BUA sanctioned in the plan.

24) Though Section 4 agreement contemplates conveyance of entire land admeasuring 1463.39 sq.mtrs in favour of Petitioner-Society, the same was subject to valid conversion of tenancies of Vishwalakshmi building by admitting them as members of the Petitioner-Society. Though the Petitioner-Society was formed and registered on 6 September 1988, it never admitted tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as its members. Said tenants continued to pay rents to original land owners. When the first application for deemed conveyance was filed by the Petitioner-Society in the year 2013, the same reflected only 41 members comprising 36 flats and five shops. At that time, 13 tenants of Vishwalakshmi building were not members of the Petitioner-Society. It is only when the third application for deemed conveyance was filed, the Petitioner-Society claimed admission of tenants of Vishwalakshmi building as its members. As of now, there exists serious dispute between Todankars, Society and tenants about their admission as members of the Petitioner-Society. Said issue can be resolved in pending Suit No.1207 of 2018. Therefore, as of now it would be appropriate to convey only proportionate land in favour of the Petitioner-Society. In the event, Petitioner-Society succeeds in establishing valid conversion of tenancy in respect of Vishwalakshmi building, it can claim ownership in respect of balance land as well.

25) In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Competent Authority deserves to be set aside and proceedings deserve to be remanded for the purpose of conveyance of proportionate land in favour of the Petitioner-Society.

26) Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

                    (i) Orders dated 28 July 2014, 22 November 2016 and 18 February 2026 passed by the Competent Authority are set aside.

                    (ii) Application No.30 of 2025 is remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication. In such fresh adjudication, the Competent Authority shall undertake the exercise of proportionate division of the land based on sanctioned plan dated 28 December 1987.

                    (iii) The Petitioner-Society as well as Todankars shall produce before the Competent Authority certificates of their respective Architects prepared on the basis of sanctioned plan dated 28 December 1987.

                    (iv) Parties shall appear before the Competent Authority on 1 September 2026 alongwith copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court and shall apply for fixation of date(s) of hearing in the remanded proceedings.

                    (v) The certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance of proportionate land issued in favour of the Petitioner-Society shall be subject to final outcome of Civil Suit(s) instituted by the parties.

27) With the above directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.