Ashok Harbanslal Rajput Alias Kochar v. M/S Shree Gajanan Associaties And ORS

55 wp 13611-24-c.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.13611 OF 2024 Shri Ashok Harbanslal Rajput @ Kochar ... Petitioner V/s.

M/s Shree Gajanan Associates and ors.

... Respondents ______________ Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent-State. _______________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated : 13 February, 2025.

P.C. :

1.

The petition challenges order dated 30th August, 2013 passed by the Competent Authority granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building in favour of the Respondent-Society. 2.

I have heard Mr. More, learned counsel for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. 3.

Firstly, there appears to be inordinate delay and latches on the part of the Petitioner in filing the present petition. The order of deemed conveyance has been passed by the Competent Authority on 30th August, Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date:

2025.02.15 11:02:08 +0530 2013, whereas the present petition is filed 11 years later in the year 2024. PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR There is no justification pleaded in the petition qua such inordinate delay. Priya Soparkar Page No.

1 of

55 wp 13611-24-c.doc On the contrary, a bald statement is made in paragraph 21 of the petition that there is no delay or latches on the part of the Petitioner. This Court is therefore not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of delay and latches.

4.

Even if the ground of delay and latches is to be ignored, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Competent Authority. Petitioner has some dispute with the Developer in respect of the Development Agreement. He will have to agitate such dispute by adopting appropriate remedies. Existence of dispute between the land owner and the Developer cannot be a reason for not granting deemed conveyance in favour of the Society formed by the flat purchasers. Therefore, even on merits, no case is made out for interference in the order dated 30th August, 2013. 5.

The petition is accordingly rejected.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Priya Soparkar Page No.

2 of