Mumbai, April 2: In a significant ruling on the limits of statutory powers, the Bombay High Court has held that a competent authority cannot reopen concluded deemed conveyance proceedings to grant a larger land area. The court quashed a 2020 order passed in favour of a Chembur-based cooperative society.
Court quashes second conveyance order
It also imposed personal costs of Rs 50,000 on a retired official, observing that the exercise of power showed “recklessness” and was without jurisdiction.
Justice Amit Borkar allowed a petition filed by Swastik Chambers Owners’ Cooperative Society Ltd., setting aside the order dated February 28, 2020, and the subsequent conveyance deed executed on June 27, 2022.
The court clarified that an earlier order dated February 7, 2019, granting deemed conveyance over a smaller area, would remain unaffected.
Dispute over expanded land area
The case arose from a larger land parcel originally owned by Apte Amalgamations Ltd., where multiple developments had taken place over the years through different developers and societies.
The petitioner challenged a second deemed conveyance granted to Corporate Park Business Premises Cooperative Society Ltd., arguing that it was passed without notice and in violation of law.
According to the petitioner, the authority had already granted deemed conveyance for 9,274.23 sq m in February 2019. A year later, however, it passed another order granting a much larger area of 17,449.75 sq m based on fresh architect certificates — without initiating new proceedings or notifying affected parties.
Court finds lack of jurisdiction
Counsel for the petitioner argued that once proceedings under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) were concluded, the authority had no jurisdiction to revisit the matter. He described the second order as a result of “fraud and manipulation of official record”.
The court agreed, observing that “once the matter was finally decided… the authority had no power to reopen it in the same proceedings and alter the result in a substantial manner.” It also noted that large portions of both orders were identical, suggesting that the later order was “more in the nature of a modified version of the earlier order” rather than an independent decision.
Court rejects official’s defence
The court rejected the defence of Dr. P. S. Sonavane, who was then District Deputy Registrar and competent authority, that the omission to refer to the earlier order was inadvertent. It said, “An apology may be relevant on the question of personal conduct, but it does not validate an order that is passed without jurisdiction.”
Discrepancies in records flagged
The court also flagged discrepancies in official records, noting that the file contained two separate sets of proceedings (roznama), raising concerns about how the matter was handled.
Also Watch:
Costs imposed on retired official
While the petitioner sought departmental action, the court said this was barred by limitation as the officer had retired. Still, it held that the conduct showed “recklessness in the discharge of statutory duty” and directed him to pay Rs 50,000 within eight weeks, failing which interest would apply.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
