Deemed conveyance for society of bungalows at JVP Mumbai
Judgment dated 5th April 2023 of the High Court of Bombay
Deemed Conveyance Deed – 36 independent bungalows – Coop Housing Society at Juhu Vile Parle was formed in 1981 – Till 2014 the builder / owner / developer did not convey the land to the society although provided in the agreement of sale – Application for deemed conveyance filed in 2018 was allowed – Whether independent bungalows are “flats” within the meaning of Ownership of Flats and Apartment Act – Definition of “Apartment” in Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 – WP dismissed challenging grant of deemed conveyance by the District Deputy Registrar (Coop. Society) with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the petitioners / developers, payable to St.Jude India Child Care Centres.
The petitioners are the owners and developers of the land at Juhu Vile Parlle. The petitioners had constructed and sold 36 bungalows under various agreements of sale on various conditions including that the builders shall register a company or a cooperative housing society and transfer the property in its name.
Respondent No.1 Golden Beach Coop. Housing Ltd, Mumbai, was formed in 1981. However, for 30 years, the land was not conveyed to the society.
The first application for deemed conveyance was rejected by the order dated 18.7.2014 of the authority.
The second application of 2016 was rejected by the order dated 26.7.2017 with liberty to file fresh application.
Third application filed by the society was allowed by the order dated 10.8.2018 by the respondent no.2 – Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society and deemed conveyance was granted.
This order dated 10.8.2018 was challenged in the writ petition.
On 14.2.2019, an additional affidavit was filed by the builders – petitioners that each bungalow is independent, each agreement for sale was separate, property tax is levied on each bungalow and therefore, said bungalows are not “flat” as per Ownership of Flats and Apartment Act. This contention that the agreements were for bungalows and not for flats was not raised before respondent no.2.
The respondent no.2 filed affidavit in reply and stated that the scheme was of 12 structures / buildings comprising 3 bungalows in one conjoint structure without any walls.
HELD – Having considered the facts of the case, the decisions cited by the parties and the contentions and having regard to the definition of “apartment” in the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, the writ petition was dismissed.
K.V.Satyamurthy and another Vs. Beach Coop. Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai and another Writ Petition No.325 of 2019
