M/S AKANSHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROU. ITS PROP CHANDRAKANT SHRIPAT TAMBODKAR v. THE SYATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. GOVT PLEADER AND ORS
Deemed Conveyance under MOFA: Applicability of Res Judicata and Limits on Competent Authority's Power to Review Prior Decisions.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:20530
Decision Date: 05-05-2025
List of Laws
The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act; Indian Contract Act, 1872; Res Judicata
- Facts: Akanksha Construction Co., the original promoter, constructed buildings for Torna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (Torna CHS) on land later designated as Final Plot No. 696. Nutan Realtors claims ownership of the same land based on an Indenture of Conveyance from the original landowners with Akanksha's consent. Divya Development claims rights in adjoining lands and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Torna CHS. Torna CHS filed multiple applications for deemed conveyance of the land.
- Procedural Posture: Torna CHS's first two applications for deemed conveyance were rejected by the Competent Authority. The first was rejected due to non-impleadment of all landowners and the pendency of a suit (Suit No. 153/2016). The second was rejected primarily due to the pending suit. Torna CHS then filed a third application, which was allowed by the Competent Authority. Akanksha Construction and Nutan Realtors, aggrieved by the order, filed Writ Petitions challenging the Competent Authority's order.
- Issue: Did the Competent Authority err in entertaining Torna CHS's third application for deemed conveyance, considering the previous rejections and the principles of res judicata? Can the Competent Authority reverse its own decision without a change in law or facts?
- Holding: Yes, the Competent Authority erred in entertaining the third application. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of the Competent Authority.
- Reasoning: The High Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial bodies like the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority's second rejection order, which was not challenged, attained finality. The Competent Authority cannot sit in appeal over its own decision and correct its own mistakes. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd., which held that a Competent Authority cannot entertain a fresh application for deemed conveyance after rejecting an earlier one, even with liberty to reapply, if the complications were not sorted out before the appropriate Court. The High Court granted Torna CHS liberty to challenge the second rejection order dated 5 August 2021.
🔒 For Members Only