The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order that granted deemed conveyance to a housing society in Andheri West, stating that the competent authority under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) had no power to entertain a second application on an issue that had already been finalized.
Court's Observations
Justice Farhan Dubash, in his ruling on Tuesday, noted that the deputy registrar of cooperative societies effectively exercised a power of review, which is neither recognized under MOFA nor conferred upon the authority. He stated, “The second application was not only premature but was barred by principles analogous to res judicata and doctrine of finality of proceedings.”
The judge quashed the May 2017 order, canceled the deemed conveyance deed, and directed the authorities to take necessary steps to give effect to the cancellation.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by B K Corporation, the promoter and developer of a layout comprising four buildings. In January 2016, Apeksha CHSL had applied for deemed conveyance. However, in August 2016, the competent authority rejected the application, deeming it premature due to a pending civil suit filed by Noble House CHSL concerning the same layout. The authority granted Apeksha the liberty to file a fresh application after the suit was decided.
In January 2017, Apeksha filed a second application, and the competent authority granted deemed conveyance in May 2017. The promoter’s advocate, Shishir Joshi, argued that the second application was barred by res judicata. Justice Dubash concurred, noting that both applications had identical parties and subject matter, and the civil suit was still pending. The August 2016 order was never challenged and had attained finality.
Legal Principles
Referring to Supreme Court decisions, the judge emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority does not possess inherent power of review unless the statute explicitly confers it. The competent authority lacked statutory power to review or reopen its earlier order and therefore acted without jurisdiction.
Apeksha’s advocate, Saket Mone, argued that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar consideration of an application for deemed conveyance. However, Justice Dubash stated that this case stood on a materially different footing. The key question was whether the competent authority, having chosen to defer adjudication until the suit was decided, could subsequently ignore its own binding determination.
Allowing the petition, the court granted Apeksha the liberty to challenge the August 2016 rejection order.
Related Information
For more updates, check: Gold Rate in Mumbai, Silver Rate in Mumbai, Bank Holidays in Mumbai, Public Holidays in Mumbai, Mumbai AQI, Weather in Mumbai, Petrol Price in Mumbai, Diesel Price in Mumbai, CNG Price in Mumbai, LPG Price in Mumbai.
Stay updated with the latest Mumbai news. Download the TOI App.
About the Author
Rosy Sequeira is a special correspondent at The Times of India, Mumbai, since July 2011. She has covered the Bombay High Court for over nine years, including earlier stints with other newspapers. Her forte is on-the-spot accurate reporting, and she strives to bring a human face to court proceedings while highlighting judicial observations that resonate with the common man.
