Bombay High Court Quashes Deemed Conveyance Certificate Over Fraud, Wrong Plan and Subsisting Leasehold Rights

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) to a cooperative society. The petition concerned competing claims of leasehold title, ownership of superstructure and alleged conveyance documents in respect of a commercial plot and two structures in Borivali, Mumbai.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order of 20.03.2024 and cancelled the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance issued to the society; all consequential actions taken pursuant to that Certificate were set aside. The Court found that the Competent Authority had failed to consider a subsisting lease and the petitioner’s ownership of the superstructure and observed that multiple documents placed before the Competent Authority “prima facie” showed serious defects. 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 judgment recorded that a registered Deed of Confirmation bore inconsistent registration stamps, which the Court described as “prima facie a forged and fabricated document”, and said such filing pointed to “prima facie grave fraud” on the Competent Authority. The Court noted there was “no reasonable explanation” for the anomalies and that the circumstance was “shocking to the core.”

Background

The dispute arose from title and possession of land originally owned by Shri Amrutlal G. Sonawala. The owner executed a lease dated 08.05.1963 to Respondent No.4, who assigned the remainder of the lease to the petitioner by a Deed of Assignment dated 24.08.1966. The petitioner constructed a ground plus two‑storey commercial building, inducted 23 tenants and paid property tax in its name. Tenants later formed a cooperative society in April 2014. The society filed an application under Section 11(3) MOFA (Application No.109 of 2023) for unilateral deemed conveyance; the District Deputy Registrar allowed the application and issued a Certificate on 20.03.2024.

The petitioner challenged that order by writ, contending that its leasehold rights and ownership of the superstructure subsisted, that conveyance and confirmation deeds relied upon by the society did not extinguish the petitioner’s rights, and that the society misrepresented plan and sanction documents. The society and Respondent No.3 (heir of the original owner) maintained that conveyance documents and payments to the owner’s heirs converted tenancy into ownership and that the society had acted as purchaser/promoter under MOFA.

The High Court examined title documents, the record of the earlier RAE & R eviction suit (which had been withdrawn), municipal tax assessments, the building plan annexed to the deemed‑conveyance filing and registered deeds relied upon by the society. The Court found multiple procedural and documentary failures: absence of a commencement certificate, absence of an approved plan matching the G+2 structure (the plan produced pertained to an adjoining parcel), and material inconsistencies in the registered Deed of Confirmation (one internal page bearing a different year’s stamp). The Court recorded that the Deed of Conveyance dated 29.08.2009 was unregistered and was not placed before the Competent Authority, surfacing only during litigation and thereby casting “very serious doubt” on its veracity. The Court applied the doctrine of dual ownership, relying on precedent to hold that ownership of land and of the superstructure may vest in different parties, and concluded that the Competent Authority erred in granting the Certificate without addressing the encumbrance of the petitioner’s subsisting lease and ownership. The writ petition was allowed, the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance dated 20.03.2024 was cancelled and the request for an eight‑week stay 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 Petitioner. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dushyant Pagare a/w Ms. Shubashree Yewale, Advocates for Respondent No.1; Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/b Ms. Aditi S. Naikare, Advocates for Respondent No.3; Mr. P.J. Gavhane, A.G.P for Respondent No.7 – State.