In its October 19, 2026, judgment in Hasmukh Narrotamdas Malkan v. The District Deputy Registrar, Societies, Mumbai City-3 & Ors., the High Court held that the authority had failed to adequately address material submissions concerning the extent of land to be conveyed, the proposed construction of a second building, development rights and the authority of the society’s secretary to file the application.

Justice Farhan P. Dubash clarified that the judgment does not determine whether the society is ultimately entitled to deemed conveyance or whether the builder’s objections are valid. The application has been remitted for fresh consideration, with the authority directed to complete the exercise by March 31, 2027.

Dispute Over Land in Vile Parle East

The dispute concerns Plot Nos. 157, 158 and 159 and Final Plot No. 324 of Town Planning Scheme II, situated on Dixit Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai. The property measures 4,133.68 square metres, with a net area of 4,059 square metres after accounting for the setback.

The property includes Vimal Apartments, a ground-plus-six-storey building constructed in the 1970s by M/s. Vimal Builders. The firm’s original partners included Hasmukh Narrotamdas Malkan, who is the petitioner in the present case.

The builder had entered into an agreement to purchase the land from the Jani family in February 1973. Following litigation over the transaction, a specific-performance suit was decreed in favour of Vimal Builders in 1992, after which a conveyance deed was executed in its favour.

Purchasers of flats in Vimal Apartments formed Vile Parle Vimal Gauri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which was registered in October 1982.

The society subsequently sought conveyance of the land. After pursuing civil litigation for several years, it applied to the District Deputy Registrar in March 2021 for deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

How the Deemed Conveyance Order Was Challenged

The District Deputy Registrar initially rejected the society’s application in August 2023, holding that disputed questions of ownership could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA.

The society challenged that decision before the Bombay High Court. In November 2024, the High Court set aside the rejection and sent the application back to the authority for fresh consideration.

The authority was specifically directed to consider the submissions advanced by the parties, record reasoned findings and then decide the application.

However, following reconsideration, the District Deputy Registrar granted deemed conveyance to the society through an order dated March 20, 2025.

Vimal Builders challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that the authority had again failed to examine material objections and explain why they did not affect the society’s claim to the entire plot.

Builder Raises Questions Over Second Building and Development Rights

One of the principal objections concerned the builder’s claim that the original development contemplated more than one building on the property.

According to the builder, the municipal corporation had sanctioned a plan in February 1976 permitting construction of a second building up to the plinth level. The builder claimed that the plinth was constructed that year, but further work could not proceed because of encroachments and unauthorised extensions by tenants occupying portions of the land.

The builder also relied on contractual provisions that it argued recognised its rights concerning the balance floor space index (FSI) and the proposed second building.

It contended that the authority could not determine the society’s entitlement merely by referring to one clause in the flat-purchase agreements. Instead, the agreements had to be read as a whole, alongside the sanctioned plans and other relevant documents.

The builder further relied on an earlier pleading filed by the society in a 1993 suit, arguing that the society had acknowledged its claim concerning the remaining FSI and had expressed no objection to its use for the proposed second building.

The High Court did not rule on the validity of these claims. It examined them to determine whether the authority had adequately considered the objections before granting deemed conveyance.

High Court Says Recording Objections Is Not Enough

The High Court found that the District Deputy Registrar had referred to the builder’s objections in the impugned order but had failed to explain their relevance or why they did not affect the society’s claim.

The authority had relied on Clause 22 of the agreements for sale and the description of the land in the agreements’ first schedule. However, it had not examined the other contractual clauses relied upon by the builder to argue that the development contemplated more than one building.

Similarly, the authority had recorded the objection based on the society’s earlier court pleading without examining its significance for the extent of conveyance sought.

The High Court observed that a general statement that disputes concerning FSI and property rights fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts did not adequately explain why the documents relied upon by the builder had no bearing on the determination.

The court also found that the authority had not decided the builder’s objection concerning the society secretary’s authority to file the deemed-conveyance application.

The judgment emphasised that merely recording a party’s submissions does not amount to considering and deciding them. The authority was required to address the material objections and explain its conclusions.

Summary Proceedings Do Not Exempt Authority From Giving Reasons

The society argued that the District Deputy Registrar had given sufficient reasons for granting deemed conveyance. It also contended that the authority’s limited jurisdiction did not extend to deciding disputed questions of ownership, FSI and development rights.

The High Court acknowledged that a quasi-judicial authority is not required to write an elaborate judgment or separately answer every argument. However, its reasons must demonstrate that it has considered the material issues in dispute.

The court held that the summary nature of proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA does not relieve the authority of its obligation to examine relevant documents and explain its decision.

The judgment also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises CHS & Ors., which emphasised the need for reasoned orders in deemed-conveyance proceedings.

The High Court noted that the District Deputy Registrar had been directed during the earlier remand to record reasoned findings. The failure to address the material objections therefore also amounted to non-compliance with the earlier direction.

Authority Had Changed Its Decision Without Adequately Explaining Why

Another factor considered by the High Court was the difference between the authority’s two decisions.

In August 2023, the District Deputy Registrar had rejected the society’s application on the ground that disputed ownership questions could not be decided in summary proceedings. After the High Court remitted the matter, the authority granted deemed conveyance in March 2025 on the same factual material.

The High Court clarified that the authority was entitled to arrive at a different conclusion after reconsideration. However, it was required to explain, with reference to the relevant documents and rival submissions, why the society was entitled to the conveyance sought.

The court declined the society’s request to sustain the order on an alternative legal ground, observing that doing so would require the High Court to examine competing submissions that the competent authority had not properly considered in the first instance.

Deemed Conveyance Order Set Aside, Fresh Decision Due by March 2027

The High Court set aside the District Deputy Registrar’s order dated March 20, 2025, and remitted Application No. 50 of 2021 for fresh consideration.

The authority must give the parties an opportunity to be heard, examine their material submissions and relevant documents, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. It has been directed to complete the process as expeditiously as possible and no later than March 31, 2027.

The court expressly clarified that it had not decided the merits of the builder’s objections or the society’s ultimate entitlement to deemed conveyance. All contentions remain open for determination by the authority.

What the Judgment Means for Housing Societies and Builders

The ruling highlights the importance of examining the precise extent of land and rights covered by a deemed-conveyance application.

For housing societies, the statutory obligation of a promoter to execute conveyance remains important. However, an application must still be decided after considering the relevant agreements, documents and material objections.

For builders, the judgment demonstrates that objections concerning contractual rights, development potential and the extent of land claimed cannot be ignored merely because the proceedings are summary in nature.

The decision does not establish that the builder has a valid right to the remaining FSI or the proposed second building. Nor does it mean that the society has lost its claim to deemed conveyance.

Instead, the authority must now examine the competing claims and explain its findings before deciding whether, and to what extent, the society is entitled to conveyance.

The outcome will depend on the fresh consideration directed by the High Court.

Also Read: Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Held Hostage By Builder to Future FSI

The post Bombay High Court Sets Aside Deemed Conveyance of Vile Parle Society Land, Orders Fresh Hearing appeared first on Square Feat India.