The Bombay High Court has clarified that when two deemed conveyance certificates overlap on the same land parcel, the dispute must be resolved through a civil suit rather than summary proceedings. The judgment preserves both certificates until a civil court declares otherwise, emphasizing the limitations of the Competent Authority's jurisdiction in title disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Dev Ashish Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Sharma Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 17 July 2023 passed by the District Deputy Registrar (Competent Authority) granting a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of Shri Varad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No.2). The dispute pertains to a land parcel admeasuring 49.43 square meters out of CTS No.872, which the petitioners claim was already conveyed to them vide an earlier certificate dated 9 May 2014.
Key Facts
- CTS No.872 originally admeasured 284.10 square meters and was conveyed to Petitioner No.1-Society on 9 May 2014 under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).
- Respondent No.2-Society filed Application No.29 of 2023 for deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 750.39 square meters, comprising 700.95 square meters from CTS No.871 and 49.43 square meters from CTS No.872.
- The Competent Authority granted the certificate on 17 July 2023, leading to the registration of a deed of conveyance on 19 December 2023 and Mutation Entry No.1346 of 2024 dated 21 June 2024.
- Petitioner No.1-Society contends that Respondent No.2-Society was aware of the earlier conveyance but failed to implead Petitioner No.1 in its application.
- Respondent No.2-Society argues that the disputed land was sold by the original owner, Smt. Kamalabai Moreshwar Deshmukh, to Shri Harishchandra Raghunath Kudaskar via a registered sale deed dated 8 May 1961, and subsequently assigned to its developer.
Procedural History
- 09.05.2014: Competent Authority issued certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance for CTS No.872 in favour of Petitioner No.1-Society.
- 18.12.2014: Deed of conveyance registered for Petitioner No.1-Society.
- 17.07.2023: Competent Authority issued certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance for CTS No.871 and 49.43 square meters of CTS No.872 in favour of Respondent No.2-Society.
- 19.12.2023: Deed of conveyance registered for Respondent No.2-Society.
- 21.06.2024: Mutation Entry No.1346 certified, recording Respondent No.2-Society’s name in revenue records.
- 2025: Present writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 17 July 2023, the deed of conveyance dated 19 December 2023, and Mutation Entry No.1346 of 2024.
- A direction to the Competent Authority to delete the 49.43 square meters from Respondent No.2-Society’s conveyance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Competent Authority under MOFA has the jurisdiction to adjudicate a title dispute arising from overlapping deemed conveyance certificates, or whether such disputes must be resolved through a civil suit.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The Competent Authority erred in conveying 49.43 square meters of CTS No.872, which was already conveyed to Petitioner No.1-Society on 9 May 2014.
- Respondent No.2-Society failed to implead Petitioner No.1 in its application, despite knowing of the earlier conveyance.
- The impugned order was passed ex parte, violating principles of natural justice.
- The disputed land was merely an easementary right for access to CTS No.871, not an ownership right.
For the Respondent No.2-Society
- The Competent Authority rightly conveyed the land, as it was sold by the original owner to Shri Harishchandra Kudaskar via a registered sale deed dated 8 May 1961.
- The Competent Authority is not required to adjudicate complex title disputes in summary proceedings.
- Petitioners were not necessary parties to Respondent No.2’s application.
- Relied on the judgment in M/s. Shree Chintamani Builders v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No.2839 of 2013) to argue that the remedy lies in a civil suit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of rights created under the registered sale deed dated 18 May 1961, which purportedly sold the disputed land to Shri Harishchandra Kudaskar. The deed contained ambiguous language, using terms like हाटीचा रस्ता (easementary road) but also stating that the land was आपल्या ताब्यांत दिली आहे (given in possession) and recognizing Shri Kudaskar as the मालक (owner).
"What exactly is the purport of the above covenants recorded in the Sale Deed will have to be decided in a civil suit and the same cannot be decided in a summary inquiry by the Competent Authority."
The Court noted that CTS No.871 (admeasuring 700.95 square meters) could only be accessed through CTS No.872, making the 49.43 square meters a critical access road. However, the Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under MOFA is limited to summary proceedings and does not extend to adjudicating title disputes.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises CHSL ((2025) 7 SCC 249), which held that a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance creates a rebuttable presumption of title but does not finally determine rights. The affected party must seek a declaration from a civil court to challenge the certificate.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified:
- Both certificates of deemed conveyance (dated 9 May 2014 and 17 July 2023) shall continue to subsist until a civil court declares otherwise.
- The petitioners are at liberty to file a civil suit seeking a declaration of title over the 49.43 square meters of CTS No.872.
- The civil court shall decide the suit on merits, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations or the Competent Authority’s orders.
- No order as to costs was passed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Competent Authority Cannot Adjudicate Title Disputes
- The Competent Authority under MOFA lacks jurisdiction to resolve complex title disputes in summary proceedings.
- Practitioners must advise clients that deemed conveyance certificates are not conclusive proof of title and can be challenged in a civil suit.
Civil Suit Is the Appropriate Forum for Overlapping Claims
- When two deemed conveyance certificates overlap on the same land, the affected party must file a civil suit to seek a declaration of title.
- The Court emphasized that both certificates remain valid until a civil court rules otherwise, which may lead to temporary dual ownership.
Documentary Evidence Is Key in Land Disputes
- Registered sale deeds and historical documents play a crucial role in establishing ownership or easementary rights.
- Parties must scrutinize ambiguous language in deeds (e.g., terms like easementary road vs. ownership) and seek judicial interpretation where necessary.
Strategic Implications for Redevelopment Projects
- Developers and societies must verify land records thoroughly before entering into redevelopment agreements to avoid disputes over access roads or overlapping conveyances.
- If a deemed conveyance certificate is challenged, the burden of proof shifts to the party claiming exclusive ownership to establish their title in a civil suit.
