This is evident from the following statements companytained in paragraphs f and g of the writ petition This application was opposed by the petitioners as also the respondent number.
5 and pleadings filed thereat.
on 23.1.2012, 27.2.2012, 7.3.2012, 13.3.2012, 19.3.2012, 27.3.2012, 3.4.2012, 17.4.2012, 7.5.2012 and 15.5.2012.
Meters out of the said larger land bearing CIS No.
The Sub Registrar shall take further action under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, The Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Late Shri Mohan Singh predecessor of the appellants owned land measuring 4144.90 sq.
Some of the numbericees also filed their affidavits.
On 15.5.2012 also Petitioners didnt file written arguments and submitted letter for keeping matter after 9.6.2012.
The Respondents number 3 after the impugned order dated 12th June 2012, immediately without due numberice as required under the provisions of law with the assistance of the Respondent number 1 executed and registered the Deemed Conveyance executed on 14th June 2012 and registered on 18th July 2012 bearing registration number BDR 9/5980/2012 with the Respondent number 2.
Petitioners have been given ample opportunity by my predecessor to file their say in the interest of natural justice.
But later on it was revealed that on 19.6.2012 near about 41 Revision Applications were listed on the board for hearing before this respondent and therefore it was decided to pre pone the matter to 21.5.2012 and numberices to that effect were sent to Petitioners by registered post but this office has number received acknowledgement from the postal department.
He finally decided the application vide order dated 12.6.2012, the operative portion of which is reproduced below ORDER AND THE CERTIFICATE In exercise of the powers companyferred on me under section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act, 1963, I, S. P. Ghorpade, District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai City 3 , Competent Authority under section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.
At the asking of the appellants, respondent No.5 produced the companysent of respondent Nos.
On 16.10.1979, he entered into an agreement with respondent No.4 for sale of land measuring 3762.45 sq.
Therefore matter was fixed on 19.6.2012.
emphasis added Along with the writ petition, the appellants filed an application for interim stay.
Shri Rohatgi referred to the English translation of the order sheets recorded by respondent No.1, xerox companyies of companymunications dated 15.2.2013 sent by Senior Superintendant of Post Offices, Mumbai City North to Ms. Pritha Dave, companynsel for respondent No.3 and the companynter filed on behalf of respondent No.1 before the High Court to show that the numberice issued in terms of the direction given by respondent No.1 on 16.5.2012 was number served upon the appellants.
Due to number payment of the amount in terms of agreement dated 16.10.1979, the appellants, who are the legal heirs of late Shri Mohan Singh, issued numberice dated 16.3.2005 and terminated agreement dated 16.10.1979.
The learned Single Judge took companynizance of the assertion made in the writ petition that numberice of preponement of the date of hearing was number served upon them, but refused to grant stay on the ground that the writ petition was filed after four months of the order passed by respondent No.1 and during the intervening period companyveyance deed had already been registered for a sum of Rs.95 lacs and the Society and respondent No.3 had entered into development agreements with builders.
In his reply dated 19.3.2012, appellant No.1 raised several objections to the maintainability of the application filed by respondent No.3.
I hereby authorize the applicant society to prepare a Conveyance Deed to be executed as unilateral companyveyance as deemed companyveyance of all the right, title and interest of the promoter M S. Diamond Enterprises and Shri Mohansingh Bhagwansingh Sawheny and on his demise his legal heirs referred as opponent No.1 to 8 namely viz 1 Mr. Taranjeet Singh Mohan Singh Sawhney, 2 Mrs. Jaspalkaur Chadha 3 Mr. Sardar Tejinder Singh, 4 Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur Sawhney, 5 Mr. Inderpreet Singh Sawhney, 6 Mrs. Amit Kaur Sabarwal, 7 Mrs. Surjit Kaur Sawhney and 8 Mrs. Gajender Pal Kaur, being the land owners and or their legal heirs Assignees and the executors in respect of land admeasuring about land admeasuring gross plot area entitlement of 2634.36 Sq.
Respondent No.1 entertained the application and ordered numberices to the appellants and respondent Nos.
However this order is issued on the basis of documents and information submitted by the Applicant and in the belief that there are numberdispute regarding the title of the said land and subject to the following companyditions.
After four years, respondent No.5 approached the appellants for purchase of 702.341 sq.
3 and 6.
The Honble Competent Authority despite the fact that the Advocate for the respondent number 3 submitting that she is number filing the rejoinder has taken the rejoinder on file and despite the fact that the matter was adjourned for filing sur rejoinder hearing on 19th June 2012, proponed the same to 12th June 2012 without giving Notice to the parties and passed a judgment and order on 12th June 2012 stating that the matter was closed for order on 21st May 2012.
However, the appellants did number file written arguments and applied for adjournment.
Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior companynsel for the appellants argued that the order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be declared as nullity because he arbitrarily preponed the date of hearing and decided the application of respondent No.3 without bothering to find out whether the numberice issued to the parties about the changed date had been delivered served.
Thereafter also on 17.4.2012 Advocate for Applicant society filed rejoinder and companyy was served on Petitioners on 17.5.2012.
One of the grounds taken by the appellants was that respondent No.1 unilaterally changed the date of hearing and finally decided the matter without ensuring service of numberice issued to the parties about the changed date of hearing.
There after it was incumbent on Petitioners to argue the matter or else to file written arguments.
Petitioners have already filed written reply on 19.3.2012 and thereafter opportunity of arguing the matter was given to the Petitioners on 3.4.2012.
After sometime, he suo motu changed the date of hearing from 19.6.2012 to 21.5.2012 and a numberice to this effect was issued by his office on 16.5.2012.
In furtherance of the agreement entered with M s. Raja Builders, respondent No.3 filed an application in Form VII under Section 11 3 read with Section 11 4 of the 1963 Act and Rules 11, 12 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Rules, 1964 and prayed for grant of a certificate for unilateral execution of the companyveyance deed.
companyprised in CTS Nos.
The appellants challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No.10287/2012.
In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the companynter affidavit filed before the High Court, respondent No.1 averred as under I say and submit that, the matter was heard on many occasions viz.
Although the appellants had terminated agreement dated 16.10.1979, respondent No.3 entered into an agreement with M s. Raja Constructions Company M s. Raja Builders for redevelopment of the buildings of C, D and E Wings.
That if the above documents produced by the applicant are found hereinafter to be incorrect and number genuine, the applicant will be liable to be face the companysequences in accordance with the law.
The said Conveyance is thus bad in law and improper as numbernotice under the Registration Act was given to the petitioners.
On the same date matter was adjourned for arguments to 17.4.2012.
The applicant is directed to submit the certified companyy of Conveyance deed, an unilateral instrument of companyveyance as deemed companyveyance registered by the Sub Registrar or the Registration officer appointed under Registration Act, 1908 along with certified companyy of index II within two months of such registration as required under 9 2 of the Rules.
Meters and net plot area of 2451.12 Sq.
Advocate for Petitioners neither raise any objections number he pleaded for longer date.
out of the land owned by late Shri Mohan Singh.
Meters and net plot area of 2451.12 Sq.
Advocate of Applicant society submitted that she doesnt want to file rejoinder and was ready for arguments.
Petitioners were directed to file written arguments on or before next hearing which was fixed on 15.5.2012.
On 7.5.2012, the case was adjourned for 15.5.2012 with a direction to the appellants to file written arguments.
Thus, it is entitled to have unilateral companyveyance of land admeasuring gross plot area entitlement of 2634.36 Sq.
Meters out of the said larger land bearing CTS No.
Thereupon, respondent No.1 adjourned the case to 19.6.2012.
661 to 691 of Village Kole Kalyan, Bandra, District Mumbai Suburban and the building companystructed thereon known as Royal Diamond Park and is entitled to get the unilateral companyveyance deed prepared and executed, as deemed companyveyance and get it registered as provided under the Act.
He also pleaded that the applicant respondent No.3 herein does number have the locus to file the application because agreement dated 16.10.1979 executed by Shri Mohan Singh in favour of respondent No.4 had already been terminated.
Thereafter, the appellants executed companyveyance dated 25.8.2011 in favour of respondent No.5 and the developer M s. Rahul Constructions.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed rejoinder affidavit.
After execution of the agreement, respondent No.4 companystructed five buildings, which were occupied by the members of three Co operative Housing Societies, i.e., respondent Nos.
out of CTS Nos.661 to 691 of Village Kole Kalyan, Bandra.
Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit A is the companyy of the Order and Judgment dated 12th June 2012 passed by Respondent number 1 viz.
S. SINGHVI, J. Leave granted.
Certify under section 11 3 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act, 1963, that the Royal Diamond Park Co operative Housing Society Ltd., Datta Mandir Road, Kole Kalyan Vakola, Santacruz E , Mumbai 400 055 is entitled and is a fit case to grant unilateral companyveyance executed as deemed companyveyance in their favour and to have it registered.
This appeal is directed against order dated 20.2.2013 by which the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court refused to stay the order passed by respondent No.1 District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies cum Competent Authority, Mumbai City 3 cumCompetent Authority appointed under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act, 1963 for grant of certificate to respondent No.3 Royal Diamond Park Co operative Housing Society Ltd. to get a unilateral companyveyance deed executed and registered in respect of an area measuring 2634.36 sq.
3, 5 and 6.
661 to 691 of Village Kole Kalyan, Taluka Andheri.
the Deputy District Registrar the Competent Authority under section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act, 1963 entitling the respondents number 3 to an order for Unilateral Conveyance executed as Deemed Conveyance in their favour for land admeasuring gross plot area entitlement of 2634.36 sq.
9 10 of survey No.
4 to 6.
mtrs and net plot area of 2451.12 sq mtrs out of the companymon plot of land bearing Hissa No.
5 3 part of survey number 423 companyresponding CTS number 661 to 691 of Village Kole Kalyan, Taluka Andheri MSD admeasuring 4114.90 sq.
According to appellant No.1, he had already executed an agreement with one of the Societies and M s. Rahul Builders and, therefore, respondent No.3 was number entitled to seek execution of unilateral companyveyance in respect of 2507.62 sq.
422 and Hissa No.
On 21.5.2012, respondent No.1 heard the arguments of the companynsel for the applicant and closed the matter.
In the first place, he pleaded that the relief of specific performance of the agreement can be obtained only from a Civil Court and respondent No.1 did number have the jurisdiction to entertain the application.
661 to 691 of Village Kole Kalyan, Bandra, District Mumbai Suburban and the building known as Royal Diamond Park C, D and E wings companystructed on the said plot of land in favour of it and also as provided under section 11 5 of the Act, direct the sub registrar or the companycerned appropriate Registration officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 16 of 1908 to register this certificate issued by me along with the Instrument of companyveyance as unilateral companyveyance as I have been exempted under the Act to appear before the registration Authority, and after companyplying with the provisions of the law register such companyveyance deed as deemed companyveyance.
