<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 1835 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469635</link>
    <description>Proceedings for deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act are summary in nature: the competent authority may verify documents, hear parties, and issue conveyance, but it cannot conclusively adjudicate disputed title, leaving civil remedies open. The registration officer&#039;s role under Section 11(5) is limited to checking statutory compliance for registration and does not include appellate, revisional, or review powers over the competent authority&#039;s certificate. On the facts, writ interference was unwarranted because the conveyance order was not manifestly illegal and the appellant&#039;s leasehold rights were preserved; the appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:57:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1835 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469635</link>
      <description>Proceedings for deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act are summary in nature: the competent authority may verify documents, hear parties, and issue conveyance, but it cannot conclusively adjudicate disputed title, leaving civil remedies open. The registration officer&#039;s role under Section 11(5) is limited to checking statutory compliance for registration and does not include appellate, revisional, or review powers over the competent authority&#039;s certificate. On the facts, writ interference was unwarranted because the conveyance order was not manifestly illegal and the appellant&#039;s leasehold rights were preserved; the appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>