Deemed Conveyance – Competent Authority’s Quasi-Judicial Jurisdiction – Civil Suit for Title and Ownership Disputes – No Interference Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Constitution of India (COI) – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – High Court refused to interfere with the order of Competent Authority granting deemed conveyance – Petitioners’ remedy lies in civil suit for ownership and title disputes (Para 36, 37).

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) – Section 4 – Execution of agreements – Section 10 – Formation of legal entity – Section 11 – Obligation to execute conveyance of title – Deemed conveyance – Failure by promoter to comply with statutory obligations – Competent Authority’s jurisdiction limited to enforcing promoter’s existing obligations – Society’s entitlement to deemed conveyance upheld (Para 12, 14, 15).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 9 – Civil court’s plenary jurisdiction to decide ownership and title issues – Competent Authority not equipped to resolve complex title disputes (Para 16, 34).

High Court dismissed the writ petition – Deemed conveyance order upheld – Civil suit is the appropriate remedy for ownership and title disputes (Para 36, 37).

Subjects:

Deemed Conveyance – Competent Authority – Ownership – Title Dispute – Civil Suit – Writ Jurisdiction – Promoter’s Obligation – Flat Purchasers – Sub-division – Recreational Ground.

Nature of the Litigation: Writ Petition filed by promoters challenging the unilateral deemed conveyance order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, 1963.

Relief Sought: Petitioners sought quashing of the order granting deemed conveyance of land and undivided rights in the Recreational Ground area to respondent society.

Reason for Filing: Allegation of excess conveyance beyond the area agreed in the Section 4 Agreement and improper consideration of promoter’s objections.

Previous Decision: Competent Authority allowed the application for deemed conveyance filed by respondent society.

Issues: (a) Whether the Competent Authority’s order conveyed land beyond the area stipulated in the Section 4 Agreement? (b) Whether the Society’s claim over undivided rights in the Recreational Ground area was justified? (c) Whether the Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA extends to resolving title and ownership disputes?

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Petitioners: Order conveyed excess land and disregarded the promoter’s right to sub-division and access – Clauses in the Section 4 Agreement not considered – Application procedurally defective. (b) Respondent Society: Prolonged delay in conveyance – Society’s statutory entitlement – Agreement and approved layout plans support the deemed conveyance claim.

Ratio:

Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA is limited to enforcing the promoter’s pre-existing obligations – Title and ownership disputes require adjudication by civil court under Section 9 of CPC (Para 15, 16, 34).