Bombay HC Cancels Conveyance of Housing Society for Non-Disclosure and Improper Inquiry
Judgment dated 3.11.2025 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4408 of 2025 of Maki Homi Chibber Nee Maki Modi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
In 1948, the father of the petitioner had acquired the larger property of 2.32 hectares. After his demise, the names of mother, sister and the petitioner were mutated. Now the petitioner is the only surviving heir.
Deceased Respondent Nos.4 and 5, claiming to be tenants of a plot of 6500 sq.yards out of the larger property, had executed registered lease deed for 98 years in favour of M/s.Shreeram Construction Company.
The litigation in respect of mutation of the said lease is pending before the State Government.
In the meanwhile, the respondent no.6 constructed building Nos.A to K and sold 150 tenements by agreements as per MOFA.
A majority of flat purchasers from K building filed civil suit that that they had acquired title over the premises by way of adverse possession.
The flat purchasers of buildings A to J formed the respondent no.3 Society on 20.3.2019.
By the order dated 14.6.2022, the deemed conveyance Certificate for 5436.80 sq.mts out of total area of 2.32 hectores was given under section 11 of MOFA.
HELD that non-disclosure of the pendency of the civil suit cannot be said to be of no significance. It does not appear that the competent authority had the benefit of lease agreement, the lease agreement rovided that the lessees had the right to construct the building at their own risk and costs. However, Clauses 5 and 10 of the Lease Agreement provide that the lessee shall not have right to transfer his lease hold rights of the land and that the lessee agreed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the land to the lessor without compensation for construction or improvement.
The question as to whether respondent no.6 could have conveyed the lease hold rights in the face of a clear indict against such transfer was also required to be examined.
The impugned order was passed without providing effective hearing to the petitioner and without conducting inquiry under section 11.
