Bombay HC: Harshad Co-op Rightfully Claims Ownership Over Sion Buildings

Here's an interesting legal battle between Harshad Co-operative Housing Society and Lokmanya Pan Bazar Association that took place in the Bombay High Court. It's all about who gets to own the land and buildings in Mumbai. Let's break it down!

The Players and the Plot

In this case, Harshad Co-op Housing Society and Lokmanya Pan Bazar Association are in a disagreement over the ownership of two buildings, Harshad B and Harshad C, located in Sion, Mumbai. The whole story started with a request filed in 2014, challenging a decision that gave automatic ownership to Harshad Co-op.

Background and the Land Story

• 1969: Lokmanya Pan Bazar bought a large piece of land in Mumbai.
• 1977-1979: The State Government allowed them to keep some land under strict conditions, like no selling without permission.
• 1981: Lokmanya allowed a developer to build four buildings, but only two were completed.

The "Special Patron Members" Twist

Lokmanya Pan Bazar had this idea of "Special Patron Members," who were supposed to get apartments in the buildings. But here's the surprising part: these members had no real rights like voting or managing the society. It was more like a fancy title with no power.

Forming the Society

In 2002, the apartment owners got tired of waiting and formed their own society, Harshad Co-op. Lokmanya didn't like this and claimed the society was formed without their agreement.

The Court Drama

• 2013: Harshad Co-op asked for automatic ownership, which means they wanted legal ownership of the land and buildings.
• 2014: Lokmanya challenged this, saying the request was sneaky and they weren't properly told about it.

Key Arguments

• Lokmanya's View: They argued that the apartment owners were just "Special Patron Members" and not real owners. They also said the process was unfair because they weren't properly informed.

• Harshad Co-op's View: They claimed their rights under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and said they were the rightful owners since they paid for the apartments and maintained the buildings.

The Judgment

The court, led by Judge Amit Borkar, ruled in favor of Harshad Co-op. They found that:

• The apartment owners were indeed allowed to form a society and seek ownership.
• Lokmanya's argument about "Special Patron Members" didn't make sense because these members had no real rights.
• The automatic ownership was valid, and Harshad Co-op had met all necessary requirements.

Summary of the Verdict

The court dismissed Lokmanya's petition and ordered them to pay Rs. 50,000 to Harshad Co-op. The judgment highlighted that MOFA protects apartment buyers and that Lokmanya's actions couldn't take away their rights.