M/S FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD. V. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS 2025 INSC 423:

DATE: 01/04/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale

FACTS:

The case concerns a dispute over the ownership and transfer of a parcel of land in Mumbai. The subject land, part of a larger property, was originally conveyed to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (BJPL) in 1951. In 1952, BJPL leased the land to Ramkishor Singh Kunjbihari (Respondent No.3), who later transferred development rights to M/s Prakash Builders (Respondent No.4). Prakash Builders constructed an unauthorized building with approximately 27 flats, which were sold to various purchasers who subsequently formed Prakash Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Respondent No.2). In 2010, BJPL executed a deed of conveyance transferring ownership of the larger property, including the disputed land, to the appellant. A settlement agreement in 2012 led to a division of the land between the appellant and Respondent No.3, with the appellant retaining ownership of 2,768 square meters.

In 2020, Respondent No.2-Society applied for a Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The Competent Authority rejected the application, citing legal complexities, and advised the Society to seek relief from a Civil Court. However, the Society did not approach the Court and instead submitted a fresh application in 2021, which was granted by the Competent Authority, allowing unilateral assignment of leasehold rights in its favor. The appellant challenged this decision through a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on November 10, 2023. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The main issue presented before the court to be addressed was whether the High Court was in error while passing the impugned judgment which lead to the rise of this appeal.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the Competent Authority’s order dated 05.10.2021. It held that Respondent No.2-Society’s second application under Section 11 of the 1963 Act was not maintainable and must be dismissed. However, the liberty granted in the first order dated 22.02.2021 remains, but only after the legal complications are resolved before the appropriate court or forum.

The Court found that the High Court misinterpreted the Competent Authority’s first order dated 22.02.2021 by assuming that unconditional liberty was granted to the respondent. The order clearly required Respondent No.2-Society to resolve legal complications through a competent court before reapplying for the assignment of leasehold rights. Instead of following this directive, the Society filed a second application, which was wrongly entertained by the Competent Authority in violation of the principles of res judicata.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities, like the Competent Authority, do not have the power to review their own decisions unless explicitly permitted by law. Since the first order had attained finality and was never challenged, the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the second application. The decision reinforces the principle that judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, once settled, cannot be reopened without due process.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the fundamental principle of res judicata, ensuring that judicial and quasi-judicial decisions cannot be circumvented by filing repetitive applications. The Competent Authority’s first order had unambiguously directed Respondent No.2-Society to resolve the legal complexities through a competent court before reapplying. By failing to do so and instead filing a fresh application, the Society sought to bypass the due process, which the Competent Authority wrongly entertained. The Court rightly recognized that such actions undermine the finality of decisions and the structured legal framework for property disputes under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963.

Additionally, the judgment clarifies the limited review powers of quasi-judicial bodies. The Competent Authority, lacking statutory authority to revisit its earlier decision, acted beyond its jurisdiction by granting unilateral assignment of leasehold rights in the second application. The Supreme Court’s intervention rectified this error, ensuring that administrative bodies adhere to their jurisdictional limits. This decision not only upholds procedural integrity but also sets a precedent that legal complexities in property disputes must be resolved through appropriate judicial channels rather than administrative shortcuts.