Bombay HC Sends Andheri Society's Deemed Conveyance Back for a Proportionate Land Share

The building in Kolekalyan, Andheri, has 38 flats and 7 shops, and its residents registered their co-operative housing society on 16 February 1994. More than three decades later, the society still does not own the land under it. On November 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court reopened a deemed conveyance application that had been rejected in 2016, and told the authorities to work out how much land the society should actually get.

The judgment, Sterling Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. The Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (3) and Ors, Writ Petition No. 8287 of 2026, was pronounced by Justice Sandeep V. Marne. For any Mumbai buyer whose building was never conveyed to the society, it shows both how long the process can take and how an early procedural misstep can complicate it.

The short answer. The court set aside the Competent Authority's order of 28 March 2016 rejecting the society's application for unilateral deemed conveyance, and remanded it for fresh decision, preferably within four months, with parties to appear on 19 November 2026. It refused to dismiss the petition for a delay of about ten years, citing the society's continuing right under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. But it held the society "cannot be granted conveyance of the entire plot of land" and is entitled only to land proportionate to the 1,989.31 sq m of built-up area used for its building. The trade-off: the society gets a real path to title, but for a share of the land rather than the 2,666.80 sq m it had sought.

How did a 1994 society end up in court in 2026?

According to the judgment, the developer, M/s. National Developers, built the building after securing development rights from persons claiming to be landowners. Plans for part ground, part stilt and six upper floors were approved by the Municipal Corporation on 29 March 1986, and a commencement certificate for part of the building was issued on 26 May 1986. The developer's architect later submitted fresh plans that were not approved, the building was completed anyway, and a completion certificate submitted on 10 April 1991 was refused. The court recorded that "the building of the Petitioner-society is without Occupancy Certificate".

The flats and shops had been sold under agreements under Section 4 of MOFA. The court said the developer did not secure an occupancy certificate and did not convey the land and building to the society under Section 11(1), and that it "has now gone missing from the scene". The land also carries 11 other structures, and several persons claim title to it.

What happened to the society's two applications?

The society's first application, No. 60 of 2015, was rejected on 28 March 2016 on grounds including that the land was declared a slum area, illegality in construction, municipal notices, and rival title claims. The society did not challenge that order. It filed a second application, No. 197 of 2024, which the Competent Authority allowed on 29 September 2025, conveying the entire land of 2,666.80 sq m and the building.

Some original landowners challenged that order. On 17 March 2026, the High Court set it aside on the sole ground that a successive application for deemed conveyance was not maintainable, since the first had been rejected by a reasoned order, and gave the society liberty to institute appropriate civil proceedings in accordance with law. The society then filed this petition against the 2016 rejection.

Why didn't the ten-year delay sink the petition?

Contesting respondents argued the petition was "grossly barred by the principles of delay and laches", having been filed after 10 years. The court disagreed. It held that a deficit in land conveyed to a society cannot be met with a delay argument "for grabbing the land supposed to be conveyed to a society", because of a "continuous cause of action created in favour of the society to secure its due entitlement in the land under Section 11 of MOFA."

The court added that its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution "is not circumscribed by the principles of limitation", and that only gross laches would make it decline to act. It also held the petition maintainable within the March 2026 liberty, reasoning that the remedy under Section 11(3) of MOFA to approach the Competent Authority "is also a civil remedy exercisable in accordance with law". PropNewz has covered other recent Section 11 rulings, including a Malad deemed conveyance case on affidavits and consents.

Why only a proportionate share of the land?

Because the building does not occupy the plot alone. The court relied on a municipal file noting dated 12 March 1999, which recorded a permissible built-up area of 2,314.74 sq m as per completion plans, 1,989.31 sq m built up in the society's building, 653.74 sq m in the 11 existing structures, and excess built-up area of 320.31 sq m. On that basis, the court said the society can be granted land proportionate to 1,989.31 sq m of built-up area, while ownership of the rest stays with the owners of the land and structures.

The court recorded that the society's senior counsel "has fairly accepted this suggestion". It distinguished an earlier ruling that sent complicated title questions to a civil court, saying "the present case merely involves the issue of proportionate land division". A similar proportionate approach featured in PropNewz's report on the Kent Heights layout dispute in Malad.

What happens next in the remanded case?

The court's order sets out specific steps. Application No. 60 of 2015 goes back to the Competent Authority "for fresh adjudication by undertaking the exercise of proportionate land division" using the built-up area figures discussed in the judgment. The society must place before the Competent Authority a certificate of an architect indicating its exact land entitlement on that basis. The parties are to appear on 19 November 2026 to seek hearing dates, and the remanded proceedings are to be decided "as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months."

There was no order as to costs. After the judgment was pronounced, one respondent sought a stay of eight weeks. The court refused, saying that considering the nature of the findings, it was "not inclined to stay the judgment." For the members who own the building's 38 flats and 7 shops, that means the remanded proceedings can begin with the hearing fixed for this month.

What did the court say about MOFA's purpose?

The judgment quotes an earlier ruling in B.K. Corporation describing MOFA as "a beneficial legislation" enacted "to prevent the mischief where Promoters and Developers were deliberately not conveying land in favour of the association of home buyers". That ruling said courts "have always been slow in interfering with orders granting deemed conveyance in favour of co-operative housing societies of home buyers", and that the Competent Authority offers "a summary and speedy remedy".

The court also noted a pattern: where societies made mistakes by filing successive applications or seeking corrigenda for more area, the High Court "has consistently granted liberty" to challenge the original orders. That pattern helped this society, but it also shows the cost of the misstep: years spent on a second application that could not stand.

What should Mumbai buyers in unconveyed buildings do?

The judgment is a reminder that conveyance is a statutory obligation of the promoter under Section 11(1) of MOFA, and that a society can seek enforcement before the Competent Authority under Section 11(3). It also shows that an occupancy certificate gap, rival title claims and other structures on the same land can shrink what a society eventually receives. Before buying a resale flat in an older building, it is worth knowing where the conveyance stands.

1. Ask the society whether conveyance or deemed conveyance has been granted, and for a copy of any order.
2. If an application was rejected earlier, find out whether that order was ever challenged.
3. Obtain the sanctioned plans and check whether an occupancy certificate was issued.
4. Look for municipal records showing built-up area, which can decide a proportionate share.
5. Check whether other structures or title claimants exist on the same plot.
6. Take legal advice before filing any fresh application on the same land.
7. Factor an unresolved conveyance into the price, timelines and loan approval you expect.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Bombay High Court decide in Sterling Apartment CHS on November 5, 2026?

Justice Sandeep V. Marne set aside the Competent Authority's order of 28 March 2016 rejecting the society's deemed conveyance application and remanded it for fresh decision. The society is to get land proportionate to the built-up area of its building, not the whole plot. The court refused an eight-week stay.

Why was a 2016 rejection reopened in 2026?

In March 2026 the High Court set aside a second deemed conveyance order because a successive application was not maintainable, but gave the society liberty to bring proceedings in accordance with law. The court held this petition was within that liberty and declined to dismiss it for delay, citing a continuous cause of action under Section 11 of MOFA.

How will the society's land share be worked out?

Using a 1999 municipal file noting, the court said the society can be granted land proportionate to the 1,989.31 sq m of built-up area used for its building, while the remaining land stays with other owners, reflecting 653.74 sq m of other structures and 320.31 sq m of balance area. An architect's certificate is required.

What should a Mumbai flat owner in an unconveyed building take from this?

Check whether your society ever applied for deemed conveyance and what happened, because an old rejection can shape later options. Gather the sanctioned plans and any municipal records of built-up area, ask whether an occupancy certificate exists, and take legal advice before filing a fresh application rather than challenging an earlier order.

This article summarises a court judgment for general information and is not legal advice. The remanded proceedings may change the outcome.

Last updated 2026-11-07. PropNewz Team.