A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The dispute concerns competing applications under Sections 5 and 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 where the Competent Authority first dismissed an application by Prakash Apartment Co-op Housing Society Ltd. on 22.02.2021 because of unresolved legal complications, granting liberty to re-apply only after those complications were settled.

Without approaching a civil court as directed, the Society filed a second application which the Competent Authority allowed on 05.10.2021. The landowner, M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd., challenged that second order. The High Court upheld the Competent Authority’s later order. The Supreme Court examined whether the first order operated as a final determination binding the Competent Authority (a quasi-judicial body) and whether entertaining and allowing the second application amounted to an impermissible review or collateral re-decision contrary to the doctrine of res judicata.

The Court held that the 22.02.2021 order did not grant unconditional liberty to re-apply; it required the Society to get the complications resolved before a civil forum and only thereafter seek relief. Applying settled authority that the principles of res judicata and finality bind quasi-judicial authorities, the Court concluded the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second application contrary to its earlier findings and quashed the 05.10.2021 order. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

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

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The controversy arises from competing interests in a Mumbai parcel partly developed without sanctioned plans by a builder and subsequently occupied by flat purchasers who formed a co-operative society. The statutory reliefs under the 1963 Act notably the mechanism for unilateral conveyance or assignment of leasehold rights are designed to protect flat purchasers when promoters fail to convey title. The Competent Authority, exercising statutory quasi-judicial power, first examined the Society’s application and recorded factual and legal complications concerning promoter identity and multiple transfers.

That 22.02.2021 order dismissed the Society’s application while expressly permitting re-application only after the identified complications were resolved before an appropriate civil court. The Society did not obtain civil adjudication; instead it filed a fresh application which the Competent Authority allowed on 05.10.2021. The landowner challenged that allowance by way of writ.

The High Court found that the earlier order granted unconditional liberty to re-apply and therefore upheld the later order. On appeal, this Court revisited the meaning and effect of the earlier Competent Authority order, the competence of a quasi-judicial body to revisit or reverse its prior findings, and whether principles of finality and res judicata constrain such bodies.

The background is animated by factual partitions and surrender deeds executed among the original lessor, lessee and successors, and by a settlement of litigation that altered proprietary boundaries and rights facts that the Competent Authority itself described as creating legal uncertainty warranting civil adjudication before any transfer by the Authority.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The subject land formed part of a larger holding conveyed to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (BJPL) in 1951. A lease in 1952 in favour of Ramkishor Singh (respondent No.3) followed, and development rights were granted to M/s Prakash Builders (respondent No.4) who constructed approximately 27 flats without approved plans; purchasers formed respondent No.2-Society. In 2010 BJPL conveyed the larger property to the appellant.

Litigation between the appellant and legal heirs of the lessee led to Consent Terms and a Deed of Surrender of Leasehold Rights in 2012 which reallocated portions of the larger parcel and altered the appellant’s ownership extent. The Society first applied under Section 11 (Application No. 53 of 2020) for a unilateral deemed conveyance; the Competent Authority dismissed that application on 22.02.2021, explicitly recording legal complications regarding promoter identity and inter-se transfers and directing the parties to seek appropriate relief in a civil court, while granting liberty to re-apply thereafter.

The Society did not pursue civil adjudication; instead it filed Application No. 101 of 2021 on 24.03.2021 seeking unilateral assignment of leasehold rights. The Competent Authority allowed this second application on 05.10.2021 directing execution and registration of a unilateral deed of assignment for specified areas. The appellant challenged the 05.10.2021 order by writ; the High Court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court heard the appeal, scrutinizing whether the second allowance was impermissible in view of the finality of the first order.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Competent Authority’s order dated 22.02.2021 amounted to a final determination that precluded entertaining a subsequent application on the same subject unless issues were first adjudicated by a civil court?

2. Whether a quasi-judicial Competent Authority may revisit or take a contrary view to a coordinate or its own earlier determination without statutory power of review?

3. Whether allowing the second application without the civil adjudication directed earlier constituted an exercise beyond jurisdiction and violated the doctrine of res judicata as applied to quasi-judicial bodies?

4. Whether, on merits, unilateral assignment of leasehold rights could be granted in the factual matrix where constructions were unauthorized and relevant approvals were absent?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant submitted that the 22.02.2021 order clearly required the Society to get the legal complications sorted out by a competent Civil Court before re-applying; that the Society did not challenge that first order and could not ignore the direction; that the Competent Authority, being quasi-judicial, had no power of review to reverse or contradict its prior final findings; that entertaining and allowing Application No. 101 of 2021 therefore violated res judicata and amounted to jurisdictional error; and that on merits the Society could not claim unilateral assignment where constructions were unauthorized and no commencement certificate or sanctioned plans existed.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The Society argued the High Court correctly construed the 22.02.2021 order as granting unconditional liberty to re-apply; that the second application sought a distinct relief and therefore did not amount to a review; that the Competent Authority could consider the fresh application on its merits; and that objections regarding demarcation or area were unsubstantiated before the High Court and could not sustain interference.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that the language and context of the 22.02.2021 order demonstrates that liberty to re-apply was conditional upon resolution of the legal complications before an appropriate civil forum. The Court reproduced the operative extract of the order which expressly stated the Competent Authority could not transfer the leasehold right unless “these matters are settled” and that the applicant should re-apply only after settlement.

The Court observed there was no explanation why the Society did not challenge that order or obtain the court adjudication directed. Emphasizing settled precedents, the Court reiterated that principles of res judicata and finality apply to quasi-judicial authorities: once a quasi-judicial body settles an issue, that determination binds until set aside by appropriate proceedings.

The Court referenced Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. (1962/1963) and relied on Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019) to reinforce that a quasi-judicial order operates as final unless validly impeached. Applying these principles, the Court concluded the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain and allow the second application contrary to its earlier findings; the 05.10.2021 order was therefore quashed.

The liberty granted in the first order survives but is conditional upon compliance with the direction to resolve the complications before the competent forum. The Court declined to traverse other subsidiary issues, disposed of the contempt petition, and directed pending applications be closed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The dispositive legal reasoning is that a quasi-judicial Competent Authority’s final determination binds subsequent proceedings and the authority ordinarily lacks power to unilaterally reverse or contradict that determination absent statutory review power or successful challenge in a superior forum.

Where an initial order conditions any future re-application on prior civil adjudication of complications, entertaining and allowing a later application without compliance with that condition is ultra vires and a breach of the principle of finality and res judicata.

The Court anchored this ratio on authoritative precedents recognizing that judicial characteristics of tribunal decisions produce binding consequences until set aside.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed in passing that error in a quasi-judicial body’s decision, whether of fact or law, cannot be collaterally impeached except through recognised remedies; and noted that questions of factual demarcation or area claimed by the appellant were not substantiated at the High Court stage and that subsequent administrative reports could not be relied upon in that appeal. These remarks clarify evidentiary limitations and the proper forum for resolving title and boundary disputes.

c. GUIDELINES

1. A Competent Authority exercising quasi-judicial functions should not entertain a second application inconsistent with its earlier final order unless that order has been lawfully set aside.

2. Where an authority records legal complications and directs parties to seek civil adjudication, parties must approach the civil forum before pressing for administrative transfer relief.

3. Authorities should explicitly specify whether liberty to re-apply is unconditional or conditional; clear phrasing prevents subsequent jurisdictional disputes.

4. Parties aggrieved by a quasi-judicial order must challenge it by appropriate remedies rather than seek a collateral re-decision before the same authority.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the doctrine that final rulings by quasi-judicial authorities carry binding effect and that such bodies ordinarily lack inherent review power to undo or contradict those rulings. Practically, it underscores the need for litigants to follows directions in administrative orders especially when told to seek civil adjudication before pressing for administrative transfers.

The Court’s approach balances efficient statutory relief for flat purchasers against rule-of-law principles of finality and orderly adjudication of competing proprietary claims. For practitioners, the case highlights careful drafting of orders by authorities, prompt challenge of adverse administrative findings, and the imperative to pursue the civil remedy where an administrative order conditions future relief on such adjudication.

The decision is a salutary reaffirmation that administrative convenience cannot displace finality and jurisdictional boundaries; it curtails opportunistic second bites at administrative forums where earlier determinations remain unchallenged.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., [1963] 1 S.C.R. 778.
ii. Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 604.
iii. M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (3), Mumbai & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4650 of 2025, Supreme Court (01 April 2025).

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.