Facts: M/s. Asian Chemical Industries (Petitioner) challenged an order granting a Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Certificate under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1960 (MOFA) to Vijay Kailas Industrial Premises CHS Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The Petitioner claimed subsisting leasehold rights and ownership of structures on the land. The original owner had leased the land to Respondent No. 4, who then assigned the lease to the Petitioner. The Petitioner constructed a structure and leased units to tenants, who later formed Respondent No. 1 Society. The Society applied for and received a Deemed Conveyance Certificate, which the Petitioner contests, alleging fraud and misrepresentation.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as a Writ Petition challenging the order of the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies granting the Deemed Conveyance Certificate.
Issue: Did the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies err in granting the Deemed Conveyance Certificate to Respondent No. 1 Society, considering the Petitioner's subsisting leasehold rights, ownership of structures, and allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the application for deemed conveyance?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the District Deputy Registrar erred in granting the Deemed Conveyance Certificate. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the Deemed Conveyance Certificate granted to Respondent No. 1 Society was cancelled. The request for stay of the judgment was rejected.
Reasoning: The Court found several deficiencies and irregularities in the process of granting the Deemed Conveyance. These included the failure to consider the Petitioner's leasehold rights and ownership, the submission of a building plan pertaining to an adjacent plot, the absence of a Commencement Certificate, and the reliance on a Deed of Confirmation with conflicting registration dates, suggesting fraud. The Court emphasized that the documents relied upon by Respondent No. 1 were not only erroneous but also fraudulent, and that the Competent Authority had turned a blind eye to these facts. The Court also noted that the stand taken by Respondent No. 1 before the Court differed substantially from the stand taken before the Competent Authority, indicating a malafide intention. The court applied the doctrine of dual ownership, recognizing that ownership of the land and the structure thereon can vest in different parties. The court found that there was no evidence of the Petitioner surrendering its leasehold rights.