Delay does not defeat deemed conveyance: Bombay High Court revives a society's 2015 application rejected in 2016 (WP 8287 of 2026, 5 November 2026)

A single judge of the Bombay High Court has set aside a 2016 order rejecting a Mumbai housing society's deemed conveyance application and sent the application back for fresh decision, holding that a society's statutory right to secure title in its land is not defeated by the years it took to come to court.

The judgment is in Sterling Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. The Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (3) & Ors, Writ Petition No. 8287 of 2026, before Sandeep V. Marne, J. Judgment was reserved on 29 October 2026 and pronounced on 5 November 2026.

What was in dispute

The society's application for unilateral deemed conveyance, Application No. 60 of 2015, was rejected by the Competent Authority on 28 March 2016. Instead of challenging that order, the society filed a fresh application (No. 197 of 2024). The Competent Authority allowed it on 29 September 2025, conveying the entire plot of 2,666.80 sq m. The land owners challenged that order, and on 17 March 2026 the High Court set it aside with liberty to the society to institute appropriate civil proceedings. The present petition was filed under that liberty, and the court held (paras 38–39) that the Section 11(3) remedy pursued through a petition is itself a remedy exercisable "in accordance with law".

The contesting respondents asked for the petition to be dismissed on delay and laches, saying that ground alone was enough, and alternatively argued that the March 2026 liberty was only to file a civil suit.

On the delay, the court records that an Administrator was appointed on the society on 3 October 2016 and elections were held on 20 February 2018, so the society "may be accused of slight negligence" in not moving earlier (para 28). Against that, the judge held the society may have been incapacitated by roughly two years of Covid-19 restrictions, taking judicial note — though the point was not specifically pleaded — of the Supreme Court's orders excluding 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from limitation. The society separately pleaded the need for structural repairs in 2023.

What the court held

Reading Section 11 of MOFA with Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules, the judgment notes that the obligation to execute conveyance arises on the expiry of four months from the formation of the society, but that the legislature has prescribed no period within which the society must then apply. In the court's own words, "the application for deemed conveyance cannot be rejected on the ground that the same is filed after several years of triggering of the obligation" (para 29), because MOFA obligations give rise to a continuous cause of action — relying on the Supreme Court in Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd (2022 (4) SCC 103) and on this court in Sushama Tulsidas Adhav (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4325) and Satellite Garden I Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (WP 1128 of 2026, decided 16 September 2026).

At para 30 the judge puts it shortly: "mere delay does not defeat the right of a housing society to secure title in the land." The right, the court says, is not merely contractual but statutory, and remains valid until the land and building are finally conveyed.

The court also notes that its jurisdiction here was invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution, "which is not circumscribed by the principles of limitation", and that it is only where laches are gross that the court may decline to act (para 37). Two judgments pressed by the respondents, Valentine CHSL and Maryland Apartment CHSL, were held distinguishable on their facts (paras 33–34 and 35–36) — in the case of Valentine CHSL because this society had been granted express liberty by the court in March 2026.

The limit the court drew

This is not a direction to convey the whole plot. On built-up-area figures taken from a municipal file noting of 12 March 1999, the court worked with permissible BUA of 2,314.74 sq m for the plot, 1,989.31 sq m used by the society's building, 653.74 sq m by eleven existing structures and a balance of 320.31 sq m (the noting describes this last figure as excess built-up area; the court treats it as balance BUA). It held that the society "cannot be granted conveyance of the entire plot of land" and is entitled "at best" to its proportionate share (paras 47–48) — a limitation senior counsel for the society fairly accepted.

The court did not adjudicate the rival title claims of the original land owners; it fixed only the BUA basis on which the division is to be worked out, holding that ownership of the rest of the land may be retained by the owners of the land and structures (para 47).

The order

The order of 28 March 2016 is set aside and Application No. 60 of 2015 is remanded to the Competent Authority to work out the proportionate land division on those BUA figures. The society must place before it an architect's certificate of its exact land entitlement. Parties were directed to appear before the Competent Authority on 19 November 2026 and apply for hearing dates, and the remanded proceedings are to be decided "as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months". The petition was partly allowed, with no order as to costs. After pronouncement, Respondent No. 8 asked for an eight-week stay; the judge refused it (para 51).

Whether any appeal has since been filed is not known to us at the time of writing.

Related on SocietySeWA

• •Deemed conveyance: what a society must actually file
• •Can a builder's agreement delay deemed conveyance until the whole layout is built?

Source document

Read the full judgment: https://lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/bombay-hc-sterling-apartment-deemed-conveyance-5-nov-2026.pdf — this is the copy uploaded by the High Court registry on 5 November 2026 (registry digital signature of 21:54 IST), hosted by a private legal publisher; we could not locate a copy on bombayhighcourt.nic.in.