THE NOC BLOCKADE: THE CONVEYANCE FIGHT THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT RESOLVE

NOC चा अडसर: सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने न सोडवणारा अभिहस्तांतरण लढा Much of the public attention on this dispute now rests on the Supreme Court, where the State's Special Leave Petition challenges the High Court's 30 April 2026 order over 254.88 acres. But for the hundreds of housing societies across the wider belt, a different obstacle operates every day — and the petition, whichever way it goes, does not touch it. The SLP concerns the ownership of a specific 254.88-acre parcel. The NOC-for-conveyance practice is separate and far wider: across roughly 9,000 acres in Bhayandar, Mira and Ghodbunder, societies seeking deemed conveyance are asked to first obtain a No Objection Certificate from the private entity named in the 7/12 occupant column. The two run on different tracks. A ruling on who owns the 254.88 acres does not decide whether an NOC can be demanded across the rest. The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, which governs deemed conveyance, does not mention the Estate Investment Company and does not require any private company's NOC as a precondition for conveyance. The requirement arises from administrative practice — sub-registrars defer to the 7/12 occupant entry rather than the conveyance statute itself. It is a practice built on a record entry, not a right written into the conveyance statute. Because the NOC step is administrative rather than statutory, its fate is not bound to the SLP. Societies hold a statutory right to conveyance under the Ownership Flats Act; the live question is whether that right can be conditioned on an unofficial certificate from a private party. That question sits outside the four corners of the Supreme Court petition. The roughly 9,000-acre figure has itself been raised in the state legislature, where a local MLA has called for an end to what he termed a colonial-era arrangement, noting that hundreds of societies across the belt remain unable to secure deemed conveyance without first satisfying this private demand. The writ proceedings numbered WP 13529/2025 remain distinct from the SLP, and the competent authority that decides deemed conveyance under MOFA operates on its own footing — the subject this series takes up next. For now, the point stands: the conveyance blockade is a parallel fight, and the case everyone is watching does not resolve it.

SLP मध्ये २५४.८८ एकरची मालकी वादात. मात्र खासगी NOC ची सक्ती ९,००० एकरवरील शेकडो सोसायट्यांना भोगावी लागते. SLP विशिष्ट २५४.८८ एकरच्या मालकीबद्दल आहे. NOC-अभिहस्तांतरण प्रथा वेगळी व अधिक व्यापक — भाईंदर, मिरे व घोडबंदरमधील सुमारे ९,००० एकरवर, ७/१२ च्या भोगवटादार रकान्यातील खासगी संस्थेचे NOC मागितले जाते. मालकीचा निकाल NOC मागता येईल की नाही हे ठरवत नाही. मानीव अभिहस्तांतरण नियंत्रित करणारा MOFA १९६३ कुठेही Estate Investment Company चा उल्लेख करत नाही, किंवा खासगी कंपनीचे NOC आवश्यक करत नाही. ही सक्ती प्रशासकीय प्रथेतून येते — sub-registrar ७/१२ पाहून त्यातील भोगवटादाराला मान्यता देतो. NOC पायरी कायदेशीर नसून प्रशासकीय असल्याने तिचे भवितव्य SLP शी जोडलेले नाही. सोसायट्यांना MOFA अंतर्गत अभिहस्तांतरणाचा कायदेशीर हक्क आहे; प्रश्न आहे तो खासगी प्रमाणपत्रावर तो हक्क अडवता येतो का. सुमारे ९,००० एकरचा हा आकडा विधानसभेतही उपस्थित झाला असून, स्थानिक आमदारांनी ही व्यवस्था वसाहतकालीन असल्याचे म्हणत संपवण्याची मागणी केली आहे. WP 13529/2025 ही SLP पेक्षा वेगळी राहते. सध्या मुद्दा एवढाच: अभिहस्तांतरणाचा अडसर हा समांतर लढा आहे.