Summary: Velentine Properties challenged a decision by the State of Maharashtra granting a deemed conveyance to a society named Greenfield Cooperative Housing Society. The High Court of Bombay, led by Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, reviewed the case and decided to send it back for further examination.
On December 23, 2025, the High Court of Bombay delivered its decision in a case involving Velentine Properties Private Limited and the State of Maharashtra. The argument was about a piece of land in Mumbai and who has the right to officially own it.
The conflict started with an order dated October 16, 2025, by the District Deputy Registrar in Mumbai. This order gave a one-sided deemed conveyance to Greenfield Cooperative Housing Society, which Velentine Properties disputed.
Quote: "Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties."
Velentine Properties owns a large property divided into several parts, including Sub-Plot 'A'. This sub-plot has multiple buildings, and Greenfield Cooperative Housing Society uses a part of this area.
Velentine Properties had agreements with the society members, keeping certain rights over the land. Despite this, Greenfield Cooperative Housing Society wanted ownership before the entire development was finished. Velentine suggested a joint ownership, but the society disagreed, leading to legal action.
Velentine argued that the society's request was too early, citing specific contract terms and government decisions. They stressed their willingness to transfer the land as per agreements, but not before the right time.
Quote: "The statutory condition precedent is therefore, not met, thereby rendering the Application non-maintainable."
Justice Pooniwalla noted that the correct area for ownership needed clarification. The court decided to cancel the previous order and asked for an Architect from the Competent Authority to determine the correct area for ownership.
Quote: "Greenfield Cooperative Housing Society’s Application is restored to the file of the Competent Authority who shall decide the same after appointing an Architect."
The court's decision requires the Competent Authority to reassess the situation with an independent Architect's input. This aims to ensure fair ownership based on accurate land measurements.
The court has decided to cancel the previous order and asked for a new evaluation of the land by an independent Architect to ensure a fair decision on who should own the land.
