Deemed Conveyance under MOFA – Rejection of Application by Competent Authority Set Aside. High Court of Bombay – Writ Petition under Article 226 – Challenge to Rejection of Deemed Conveyance – Developer’s Delay in Redevelopment Not a Justification – Statutory Rights under Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 Upheld – Competent Authority Directed to Issue Conveyance Certificate

Case Note & Summary

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management, and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), Section 11 – Maharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Act, 2012 – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950

– Deemed Conveyance – Rejection by Competent Authority – Developer’s Inaction in Redevelopment – Statutory Rights of Housing Society – Equitable and Legal Entitlement – Developer Cannot Frustrate Society’s Rights by Delaying Formation of Federation – Judicial Precedents on Deemed Conveyance Reaffirmed. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 25, 28)

Held:The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority with directions to issue a deemed conveyance certificate within four weeks.

Subjects:Writ Petition – Deemed Conveyance – Housing Society – Developer’s Inaction – Federation of Societies – Floor Space Index (FSI) – Fungible FSI – Agreement to Sale – Gift Deed – Civil Suit Pending – Competent Authority’s Jurisdiction

Facts:a) The petitioner, a registered co-operative housing society, sought deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the MOFA Act.b) The Competent Authority rejected the application, citing incomplete redevelopment and absence of a federation of societies.c) The developer contended that conveyance should be in favor of a federation of all societies and not an individual society.d) The petitioner challenged the rejection, asserting statutory entitlement and highlighting the developer’s inaction over a decade.

Issues:a) Whether deemed conveyance can be denied based on pending redevelopment?b) Whether an individual society can seek deemed conveyance in the absence of a federation?c) Whether the repeal of MOFA affects the right to seek conveyance under Section 11?

Submissions/Arguments:– Petitioner: Delay in redevelopment cannot be a ground to deny statutory rights; MOFA remains applicable despite the enactment of the MHRDA Act.– Respondents: Conveyance should be granted only upon completion of redevelopment; petitioner’s claim exceeds contractual entitlement.

Ratio:– Deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA is a statutory right that cannot be indefinitely delayed by the developer.– The formation of a federation is not a precondition for granting conveyance to an individual society.– Pending redevelopment does not override the legal entitlement of a society to claim conveyance.– The repeal of MOFA does not extinguish the right to deemed conveyance.