A 2014 Consent Holds Up a Malad Society's Conveyance: Bombay HC on Sanjar Enclave
The Bombay High Court on November 3, 2026 declined to interfere with the rejection of Sanjar Enclave society's deemed conveyance in Malad, holding the validity of a 2014 affidavit-NOC for future development must be decided by the City Civil Court and that another society in the layout must be joined. Lessons for Mumbai buyers.
On August 22, 2014, the flat purchasers of a building in Malad (North) signed an affidavit-cum-no objection accepting that the landowners could carry out further development on the plot. Their building had received its occupancy certificate in 2009. Their society was registered in April 2015. Twelve years after that signature, the Bombay High Court has said the society cannot get its deemed conveyance until a civil court decides whether that 2014 consent binds it.
The judgment, in Writ Petition No. 4710 of 2022, was pronounced by Justice Sandeep V. Marne on November 3, 2026. The petitioner is Sanjar Enclave Premises Co-operative Society Ltd, which has 46 members. For Mumbai buyers in layouts that are still being developed around them, it is a sharp reminder that a consent signed by purchasers can follow a society for years.
The short answer. The High Court declined to interfere with the March 31, 2021 order rejecting the society's deemed conveyance application under Section 11 of MOFA, and disposed of the petition without granting conveyance. It held that the validity of the 2014 affidavit-NOC can be decided only by the City Civil Court, where the society's own suit challenging it is pending, and asked that court to decide preferably within six months. The society may then file a fresh application for a proportionate share. The trade-off: the court said "conveyance cannot be delayed to further benefit the land owners," but the society's own suit, and an omission in its application, kept its conveyance waiting.
What is the layout, and what was built on it?
According to the judgment, the land comprises Survey Nos. 32, 32A and 32B, CTS Nos. 428A, 428A/1 to 20 and 428B, in Village Malad (North), Taluka Borivali, with an area of 4,163.70 square metres. A 1959 conveyance transferred the land to the landowners. A building called Madina Manzil, ground plus three floors and about 1,780 square metres of built-up area, was approved in 1963 and tenanted. A second building, Akshar Kunj, came up in 1986 with 957.25 square metres, rehabilitating 10 tenants and selling the rest.
A layout plan was approved on August 7, 2003, with an intimation of disapproval on October 10, 2003 and a commencement certificate on April 15, 2004. Sanjar Enclave's occupancy certificate was issued on October 14, 2009, and the court noted that about 4,109.64 square metres of built-up area was used for its building. Madina Manzil's redevelopment, now called Fortune Heights, received a fresh IOD on February 13, 2019 and part occupancy certificates on October 30, 2024 and October 19, 2026.
Why was the deemed conveyance refused in 2021?
The Competent Authority, the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City-4, rejected application No. 115 of 2020 on March 31, 2021. It reasoned that conveying land at that stage would distribute FSI and TDR unequally across the layout and affect the tenants of Madina Manzil, so conveyance should follow completion of the whole layout.
The society had first asked for the entire 4,163.70 square metres. Before the High Court, it changed course and sought only a proportionate share. That shift brought a new problem to the surface: Akshar Kunj CHSL, another society in the same layout, had not been made a party.
| Question before the court | What the court said | Effect on the society |
|---|---|---|
| Was Akshar Kunj CHSL a necessary party? | Original application was "inherently defective" without it | Must be impleaded in any fresh claim |
| Does land entitlement freeze on the first plan? | Exception for written consent cannot apply until consent is tested | Proportionate share not yet fixable |
| Is the 2014 affidavit-NOC valid? | Left open for the City Civil Court | Decision awaited in the society's own suit |
| Can the authority examine consent? | Society bound by its conduct; only a civil court can decide | Writ court also declined to decide it |
| Must conveyance wait for full layout development? | No; "conveyance cannot be delayed to further benefit the land owners" | Fresh application allowed after the suit |
The redevelopment of Madina Manzil did not happen in one step either. The judgment records an IOD for its redevelopment in 2013, a fresh IOD on February 13, 2019, and further commencement certificates in 2019 and 2020. For a society next door, each of these approvals is a point at which the layout's built-up area, and the share left for others, can change. That is why the date of each approval, and what consents were on file at that time, can matter as much as the final numbers.
Why does the 2014 consent matter so much?
Because it decides how much land the society can claim. The court applied the principle from the Satellite Garden-I CHSL line of cases, as recorded in the judgment, that land entitlement freezes on the first sanctioned plan, unless earlier buildings gave express written consent to revisions. If the 2014 affidavit-NOC is a valid consent, the exception may apply. If not, it may not. The court held it could not apply the exception without first deciding whether the consent is valid.
The court described the document as falling in "blanket consent" territory, but declined to rule on its validity. One of the issues framed was whether the affidavit is a valid consent under Section 7 of MOFA. The society had itself filed a suit in the City Civil Court seeking a declaration that the 2014 affidavit-NOC is illegal and not binding, and challenging the 2019 IOD. Relying on its earlier Rose Villa CHSL decision, the court said the society was "bound by its conduct," noting that it had also not disclosed the affidavit or Akshar Kunj in its application, so the question could be decided only by the civil court.
PropNewz explained how conveyance and deemed conveyance work for Mumbai societies in our guide to conveyance and deemed conveyance, and covered another Malad ruling on what a deemed conveyance does and does not decide in our report on the assignment of lease case.
Did the court side with the landowners?
Not entirely. It rejected the argument that the society must wait until the whole layout is developed, pointing out that Fortune Heights and two other societies already exist. It acknowledged that the society's concern about further development "is not totally unfounded." And it said the society can apply for proportionate conveyance immediately after the suit is decided, without waiting for Akshar Kunj's redevelopment, because "conveyance cannot be delayed to further benefit the land owners."
It also observed that "there can be no estoppel against law." What held the society back was procedure: a missing party and a pending suit on the very consent that decides its share.
On interim relief, the record shows the trial court had refused an injunction against the new construction on June 16, 2021, except for a restraint on building touching Sanjar Enclave, and the High Court declined further interim relief on July 28, 2021. Construction on the layout went on while the dispute continued.
What happens next for the society?
The order sets out a sequence rather than a result. First, the City Civil Court has to decide the society's suit on the 2014 affidavit-NOC and the 2019 IOD, and the High Court asked that this be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. Second, once the suit is decided, the society may file a fresh deemed conveyance application, this time for a proportionate share. Third, Akshar Kunj CHSL must be made a party, since the court held that a proportionate claim cannot proceed without it. There was no order as to costs.
Until then, the March 31, 2021 rejection stands, because the court declined to interfere with it.
What should Mumbai buyers in a developing layout watch for?
Read every document you are asked to sign as a purchaser, and treat any consent to future development as a decision about your society's land. The affidavit here was signed in August 2014, after the occupancy certificate of October 2009 and before the society was registered in April 2015.
- Ask for the approved layout plan and every revision, with the built-up area allotted to each building.
- Before signing any affidavit, NOC or consent, read exactly what further development it accepts.
- Take legal advice on whether a consent is specific or a broad, open-ended one.
- Keep copies of everything signed by purchasers, individually and collectively.
- When applying for deemed conveyance, disclose all consents and name every society in the layout.
- Decide early whether you are claiming the whole plot or a proportionate share, and why.
- If you challenge a consent in a civil suit, factor in that conveyance may wait for that suit.
The six-month timeline the court suggested is a preference, not a deadline. Buyers in similar layouts should plan for the possibility that conveyance can be held up by disputes that began with a single page signed years earlier.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Bombay High Court decide in Sanjar Enclave's case?
On November 3, 2026, Justice Sandeep V. Marne declined to interfere with the March 31, 2021 rejection of the society's deemed conveyance application and disposed of the petition without granting conveyance. The society may file a fresh application for a proportionate share after its City Civil Court suit on the 2014 affidavit-NOC is decided.
Why could the High Court not decide the 2014 consent itself?
The society had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the 2014 affidavit-NOC is illegal and not binding. Relying on its Rose Villa decision, the court held the society was bound by its conduct, so the consent's validity can be decided only by the civil court, not the Competent Authority or the writ court.
Does a society have to wait until the whole layout is developed?
Not in this case. The court rejected that argument, noting other buildings already exist, and said conveyance cannot be delayed to further benefit the landowners. It allowed a fresh application right after the suit is decided, without waiting for redevelopment of the other building in the layout.
What should Mumbai flat buyers check before signing a consent for future development?
Read exactly what further development the document accepts, take legal advice on whether it is specific or open-ended, and keep copies. When seeking deemed conveyance later, disclose every consent and name every society in the layout, because leaving out the other society made the original application inherently defective.
Last updated 2026-11-06. PropNewz Team.
Contact Us
Stay updated with latest news and new projects!
Tell us what you want, We'll do the rest.
Share your budget and where you're looking. An advisor who has actually walked the sites will shortlist a handful of RERA-registered projects and tell you which to skip.