Bombay High Court Quashes Deemed‑Conveyance Certificate, Finds Prima Facie Fraud in Documents and Orders Cancellation

A single‑judge bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav heard a writ petition challenging the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies’ order dated 20.03.2024 that granted a Certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) in favour of a society. The petition by M/s Asian Chemical Industries contested the competence and correctness of the Registrar’s decision and alleged that the society obtained the certificate by relying on defective and allegedly forged documents.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 20.03.2024, cancelled the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance and set aside all consequential actions. The judge found that the petitioner had a subsisting leasehold in the land and ownership of the superstructure which created an encumbrance on title that the Competent Authority did not consider. The Court held that several documents placed before the Competent Authority were materially deficient and, on the face of the record, “prima facie a forged and fabricated document.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus from the above it is clearly seen that ownership of land and ownership of structure constructed thereon can vest in different parties. In the present case, Respondent No.3 owns and is possessed of the subject land as owner / superior lessor whereas Petitioner is its lessee of the land and owns the right, title and interest in the ground plus 2 storey structure which it has constructed thereon. This position stands undisputed.” The judge further recorded that the conduct of the society “clearly borders as dishonesty and fraud” and that the Registrar had “turned a blind eye” to manifest defects.

Background

The dispute arose from title to land (CTS Nos. 498 series) in Borivali where the original owner had executed a lease in 1963 and that lease was assigned by deed in 1966 to the petitioner, who built and owned a ground‑plus‑two‑storey commercial structure containing 24 units and let 23 of them to tenants. The tenants later formed a cooperative society in 2014 and the society filed an application in 2023 under Section 11(3) MOFA for a unilateral deemed‑conveyance certificate. The District Deputy Registrar granted the certificate on 20.03.2024.

The petitioner challenged the Registrar’s order before the High Court, contending that its leasehold and ownership of the superstructure subsisted; that the society’s application relied on unregistered or irregular conveyance/confirmation deeds and on a building plan that did not pertain to the subject structure; and that essential documents such as commencement certificates and approved sanction plans were absent. The society and the alleged owner (Respondent No.3) defended the Registrar’s order on the basis that conveyance deeds and confirmations established the society’s title and that the petitioner had surrendered rights or otherwise lost locus.

In examining the record, the Court relied on the doctrine of dual ownership (as explained in Dinkar S. Vaidya v. Ganpat S. Gore) to underscore that ownership of land and superstructure can vest in different parties. The Court found multiple grave infirmities: a registered Deed of Confirmation bore inconsistent registration stamps (one internal page stamped with a different year), the building plan annexed to the society’s application related to an adjoining plot and not the subject structure, commencement certificate and other mandatory approvals were not produced, and a later‑produced 2009 unregistered conveyance surfaced only during proceedings before this Court. The judge concluded that these defects, jointly considered, rendered the Registrar’s decision unsustainable. The petition succeeded; the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance stood cancelled and attendant actions were quashed. The society’s request for an 8‑week stay to challenge the judgment was refused.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11164 of 2024 Case Title: M/s. Asian Chemical Industries Versus Vijay Kailas Industrial Premises CHS Ltd. and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Priyanka Chadda, D.K. Shukla i/b Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocates For the Respondent(s): For Respondent No.1: Mr. Dushyant Pagare a/w Ms. Shubashree Yewale, Advocates; For Respondent No.3: Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/b Ms. Aditi S. Naikare, Advocates; For Respondent No.7 – State: Mr. P.J. Gavhane, A.G.P.