The Bombay High Court dealt with the challenge against the denial of deemed conveyance under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963. The petition highlighted disputes over title, non-registration of agreements, and fraud allegations related to a co-operative housing society’s right to enforce obligations under MOFA. The Court emphasized the role of the Competent Authority under MOFA in ensuring statutory rights without delving into title disputes, which are matters for civil suits.

1. Factual Matrix

• Petitioner: Blue Heaven Co-op Housing Society (registered under MOFA).
• Respondents: Punit Construction Co., original landowners (Shripat Patil & Anjani Patil), and CIDCO (City & Industrial Development Corporation).
• Core Issue: Non-compliance by promoters to convey title as required under MOFA, and whether the Competent Authority could reject the application on grounds of disputed title or defects in agreements.

2. Issues Raised

• Validity of unregistered and unstamped development agreements.
• Allegations of fraud and defective flat sale agreements.
• Competency of the authority under MOFA to determine ownership and title.

3. Procedural History

• The Competent Authority denied deemed conveyance in 2023, citing unverified agreements and the absence of ownership clarity.
• The High Court earlier remanded the case twice, instructing the Authority to focus on statutory obligations under MOFA.

4. Judicial Findings

A. Role of Promoter under MOFA

• Promoters are defined broadly under MOFA (Section 2(c)) to include persons causing construction.
• Owners (Shripat Patil and Ambo Gadge) were deemed promoters due to their roles in obtaining construction permissions, despite disputes over agreements with the developer.

B. Authority's Limited Jurisdiction

• The Competent Authority must only assess compliance with MOFA's statutory mandates—whether flat purchasers are entitled to deemed conveyance—without determining title or ownership disputes.

C. Fraud and Title Disputes

• Allegations of fraud in agreements and ownership claims must be resolved through civil suits, not by the Competent Authority.
• The existence of demolition or other external circumstances does not extinguish the Society's statutory rights under MOFA.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA):

   • Section 2(c): Definition of Promoter.
   • Section 4: Promoter’s obligations in flat sale agreements.
   • Section 11: Conveyance of title and deemed conveyance.

2. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:

   • Section 10: Society registration.

3. Other Laws:

   • Registration Act, 1908: Relevance of unregistered agreements.
   • Article 227, Constitution of India: High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Competent Authority’s Jurisdiction: Authority under MOFA must limit its inquiry to the promoter’s compliance with statutory obligations and cannot adjudicate title disputes.
2. Broad Definition of Promoter: Ownership disputes or fraudulent agreement allegations do not negate obligations under MOFA.
3. Statutory Rights Prevail: Societal rights under MOFA take precedence even in cases of building demolition or ownership challenges.

Subjects:

Deemed Conveyance, Housing Society Rights, Promoter Obligations under MOFA.

MOFA, Housing Society, Title Disputes, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, Deemed Conveyance, Co-operative Societies.