A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3), Mumbai & Ors., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 331 : 2025 INSC 423. The dispute concerns the Competent Authority’s power under Sections 5 and 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 to grant a unilateral assignment of leasehold rights after an earlier order had dismissed a society’s application and granted liberty to re-apply only after resolving specific legal complications in an appropriate civil forum.

The Competent Authority initially (22.02.2021) rejected the society’s claim because of factual and title complications and directed that those matters be litigated in a civil court; that order attained finality. The society nevertheless filed a second application (24.03.2021) and the Competent Authority allowed unilateral assignment by order dated 05.10.2021.

The High Court upheld that second order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the earlier order did not grant unconditional liberty to re-apply; the doctrine of res judicata binds quasi-judicial authorities and a coordinate/quasi-judicial body cannot unilaterally take a contrary view to a predecessor’s final determination unless set aside by a competent forum. Consequently, the 05.10.2021 order was quashed and the appeal allowed.

Keywords: Competent Authority; Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance; Unilateral Assignment of Leasehold Rights; Legal complications; Res judicata; Quasi-judicial authorities.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from competing claims over a portion of Survey No. 22 (C.T.S. No. 75/B) in Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, a parcel carved out of a larger holding that underwent multiple transfers, leases, and development transactions beginning in the 1950s. The crucial factual overlay comprises: a 1951 conveyance to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. (BJPL), a 1952 lease to Ramkishor Singh, a development assignment to Prakash Builders, construction and sale of flats to purchasers who later formed Prakash Apartment Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (respondent No.2), and eventual conveyance of the larger property to the appellant in 2010.

Litigation between the appellant/landowner and the lessee’s heirs led to consent terms and a Deed of Surrender of Leasehold Rights (30.12.2012), reshaping title matrices. Against that background the society applied under Section 11 for a unilateral certificate of deemed conveyance; the Competent Authority dismissed that application on 22.02.2021 because legal uncertainties and inter-se transfers required resolution by a civil court, and granted liberty to re-apply after those matters were sorted.

The society did not pursue civil litigation but re-applied (Application No.101 of 2021) and was granted unilateral assignment of leasehold rights by the Competent Authority (05.10.2021). The High Court declined to interfere and dismissed writ challenge, prompting this appeal. The Supreme Court’s review focuses on whether the Competent Authority could entertain and allow a second application inconsistent with its earlier final order, and whether the doctrine of res judicata (as applied to quasi-judicial bodies) precluded such a course. The Court framed the issue within administrative law fundamentals and precedent that bind quasi-judicial authorities to their own or coordinate determinations until set aside.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The larger property was acquired by BJPL by a deed dated 24.07.1951; a lease in favour of Ramkishor Singh followed on 29.10.1952. Prakash Builders received development rights and constructed approximately 27 flats without approved plans; purchasers later constituted Prakash Apartment Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (respondent No.2). BJPL conveyed title to the appellant on 07.07.2010, making the appellant the registered landowner under the 1963 Act.

Heirs of the lessee filed suit against the appellant and BJPL on 06.09.2012; parties settled by consent, executing a Deed of Surrender of Leasehold Rights on 30.12.2012, effecting a re-allocation of portions of the larger property. The society applied under Section 11 (Application No.53 of 2020) for unilateral deemed conveyance; the Competent Authority dismissed that application on 22.02.2021, concluding that the society could only seek assignment of leasehold rights after resolving title/transfers complications before an appropriate civil court.

The order dismissed the application but granted liberty to re-apply after settlement of those issues. No appeal/condemnatory challenge followed and the order attained finality. Instead of litigating the pointed complications, the society filed a fresh application on 24.03.2021 (Application No.101 of 2021) seeking unilateral assignment of leasehold rights; the Competent Authority allowed this application by order dated 05.10.2021. The appellant challenged the second order in the Bombay High Court (WP No.8186/2022); the High Court upheld the Competent Authority’s second order.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, attacking the second order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, breach of the earlier final order and erroneous exercise of quasi-judicial power, asserting that allowing the second application amounted to an impermissible review or contradiction of the Competent Authority’s earlier determination.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and grant Application No.101 of 2021 after having dismissed Application No.53 of 2020 with directions that legal complications be resolved in a civil court?
ii. Does the principle of res judicata bind quasi-judicial authorities such that a later application cannot be decided contrary to an earlier final order of the same Competent Authority?
iii. Whether the Competent Authority’s order dated 22.02.2021 granted unconditional liberty to re-apply, or did it restrict re-application until civil proceedings resolved title complications?
iv. If the second order is contrary to the first, does that amount to an unauthorized review or a breach of statutory limits placed on the Competent Authority under the 1963 Act?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the Competent Authority’s order dated 22.02.2021 dismissed the society’s application because of specific title and transfer complications and expressly directed that those complications be resolved in a civil forum before any fresh application; that order attained finality and was not appealed.
ii. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that permitting the society to secure assignment by a subsequent order without compliance with the earlier direction amounted to an impermissible review of the Competent Authority’s own final order and a mere circumvention of its earlier direction.
iii. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the Competent Authority, being quasi-judicial, lacked power to reverse or contradict a prior final determination unless the same was set aside by lawful proceedings; therefore the second order suffered from want of jurisdiction and should be quashed.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the High Court correctly interpreted the first order as granting unconditional liberty to re-apply and that the second application sought a distinct relief (assignment rather than deemed conveyance), to be considered on its merits.
ii. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the Competent Authority’s decision on the second application did not amount to a review but an independent adjudication of a separate claim and therefore fell within the Authority’s statutory powers under Section 11.
iii. The counsels for Respondent submitted that factual objections (e.g., demarcation/area) lacked documentary support before the High Court and could not displace the Competent Authority’s exercise of discretion.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court construed the Competent Authority’s first order (22.02.2021) as not granting unconditional licence to re-apply; the dismissal and the liberty to seek fresh relief were expressly conditional upon resolving legal complications in the appropriate civil court. The Court emphasized that the Competent Authority’s findings about legal complications and identity/transfer issues remained unchallenged and final. Citing Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. (1963), the Court reaffirmed that principles of res judicata apply to quasi-judicial bodies and that a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal’s final findings on law or fact bind subsequent proceedings unless set aside by proper process.

The Court also relied on Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India ((2019) 6 SCC 604) to underline that a quasi-judicial authority ordinarily cannot take a contrary view to a coordinate or predecessor authority without the earlier order being upset. Applying these principles, the Court held that the Competent Authority’s allowance of the second application was in direct conflict with the earlier final order and therefore beyond its jurisdiction.

The Court declined to traverse other merits (such as unauthorized construction or area computations) because the jurisdictional defect entertaining a second contradictory application was dispositive. Consequently, the 05.10.2021 order was quashed while preserving the conditional liberty recorded in the 22.02.2021 order to re-apply only after the complications were resolved in the appropriate forum. The appeal was allowed and pending related proceedings disposed of.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is twofold:

(1) when a quasi-judicial Competent Authority records a final determination on material facts or law and grants conditional liberty to re-apply only after specified steps, that determination attains finality and cannot be unilaterally reversed or circumvented by the same authority without being set aside through appropriate legal remedy;

(2) the doctrine of res judicata binds quasi-judicial bodies a later inconsistent adjudication by the same or coordinate quasi-judicial authority is impermissible unless the earlier order has been lawfully vacated. Thus the 05.10.2021 order was ultravires because it contradicted the operative effect of the earlier final order. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. and Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India were applied to support these propositions.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed obiter that it was unnecessary to delve into other contentious factual issues such as unauthorized construction, absence of commencement certificate, and precise demarcation of built area because the jurisdictional defect rendered further enquiry academic. The Court also noted the policy consideration that statutory quasi-judicial processes must respect finality and predictability; allowing successive contradictory decisions undermines public confidence and invites multiplicity of proceedings. The observations cautioned Competent Authorities to respect their own mature findings unless reversed by competent forum.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Competent Authorities must record clear, unequivocal terms if liberty to re-apply is intended to be unconditional; otherwise conditional liberties must be respected and enforced.
ii. Where an authority dismisses an application on the ground that specific matters require adjudication by a civil court, parties should pursue the civil remedy before invoking a fresh application.
iii. Quasi-judicial authorities should avoid entertaining subsequent applications that are inconsistent with their own earlier final orders unless there has been a lawful vacation or setting aside of those orders.
iv. Parties aggrieved by a Competent Authority’s order must promptly challenge it by appropriate proceedings; acceptance/inaction that allows an order to attain finality will bind subsequent proceedings.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reinforces finality as a cornerstone of quasi-judicial administration: once a Competent Authority renders a reasoned, final order addressing material facts and law, the same authority cannot thereafter entertain a derivative application that undermines that finality. The Court’s application of res judicata to quasi-judicial bodies restores procedural order and prevents forum shopping.

Practically, the ruling admonishes societies and litigants to follow directives in statutory orders if judicial determination or clarification is mandated, the civil forum must be approached and the resulting decision used as a basis for any fresh statutory application. For administrative bodies it sets an important precedent to respect the decisional integrity of prior orders and to ensure that any liberty to re-apply is interpreted in its textual and contextual limits.

The judgment does not preclude the society from ultimately obtaining assignment of leasehold rights but insists on compliance with the procedural predicate mandated by the Competent Authority in the earlier order; the remedy is therefore restorative of lawful process rather than confiscatory. The case will be instructive in future disputes where statutory authorities attempt corrective or apparently contradictory decisions without attendant appellate or revisional action having been taken against their earlier determinations.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3), Mumbai & Ors., [2025] 5 S.C.R. 331 : 2025 INSC 423.
ii. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., [1963] 1 SCR 778 (as cited in the judgment).
iii. Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 604 : [2019] 8 SCR 669 (as cited in the judgment).

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 — Sections 5 and 11.