MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has annulled an order granting deemed conveyance to a housing society in Andheri West, stating that the competent authority under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act lacked the power to entertain a second application on a finalized issue.
Justice Farhan Dubash remarked that the deputy registrar of cooperative societies effectively exercised review powers that are neither recognized under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) nor granted to it. He stated, “The second application was not only premature but also barred by principles akin to res judicata and the doctrine of finality of proceedings.”
Justice Dubash nullified the May 2017 order, canceled the deemed conveyance deed, and instructed authorities to take necessary measures for this cancellation.
The petition was initiated by B K Corporation, the promoter, and developer of a site with four buildings. In January 2016, Apeksha CHSL submitted a request for deemed conveyance. However, in August 2016, the competent authority rejected it, deeming it premature due to a pending civil suit involving Noble House CHSL regarding the same layout. The authority permitted Apeksha to file a new application post-verdict in the suit. Subsequently, in January 2017, Apeksha filed a second application, which led to the granting of deemed conveyance in May 2017.
The promoter’s attorney, Shishir Joshi, argued that Apeksha’s second application was barred by res judicata, emphasizing that both applications involved the same parties and subject matter, and that the status of the civil suit had not changed. The earlier August 2016 order had not been disputed and was thus final.
In reference to Supreme Court rulings, the judge noted that a quasi-judicial authority does not possess inherent review powers unless explicitly granted by statute. The competent authority “lacked the statutory authority to review or reopen its previous order and thus acted outside its jurisdiction.”
Apeksha’s lawyer, Saket Mone, maintained that pending civil suits do not obstruct the assessment of an application for deemed conveyance. However, Justice Dubash clarified that this case was distinct, questioning whether the competent authority, having previously opted to defer judgment until the suit’s conclusion, could disregard its own binding decision. He allowed the petition and provided Apeksha with the opportunity to contest the August 2016 rejection.
