MARYLAND APARTMENT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (2)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the present writ petitions involve common questions of law and arise out of interconnected facts, they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) By the present proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13930 of 2024 calls in question the order dtd. 31/10/2014 passed by Respondent No. 1, namely the District Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies (2), in Application No. 312 of 2013, whereby the petitioner's request for grant of unilateral deemed conveyance under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act was rejected. Similarly, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13935 of 2024 challenges the order dtd. 18/10/2023 passed by the same authority in Application No. 54 of 2023, whereby a subsequent application seeking unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of the same property was also rejected.

(3.) The factual matrix giving rise to the present petitions, as set out by the petitioner, may be briefly stated. By an indenture of lease dtd. 16/3/1959, Respondent No. 2 granted a lease in favour of Respondent No. 3 in respect of a parcel of Government non-agricultural land together with structures standing thereon, situated at Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, admeasuring approximately 23,367 square yards. The property is recorded under CTS No. 1311 of Village Chembur, along with various corresponding survey and municipal identification particulars. The names of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are reflected in the property card as lessor and lessee respectively. Respondent No. 2 represents the original members of the Sandu family, which, with a view to developing the larger property, constituted Respondent No. 4 as a committee and internally subdivided the land into three portions, described as Portions A, B and C. Thereafter, on 14/10/1979, an agreement was executed between Respondent No. 4, acting as constituted attorney of the Sandu family, and Respondent No. 8, whereby development rights in respect of the larger property were granted to Respondent No. 8, with a further right to purchase the said property subject to agreed terms and conditions. For the purpose of development, Respondent No.