Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Rajesh Himatlal, and Wonder Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, challenging an order dated 15th October 2024 passed by the Competent Authority (respondent No.3) under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). The impugned order granted unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of respondent No.1-Society, Shri Panchamrut CHS Ltd., in respect of land ad-measuring 4925.62 square metres together with undivided rights in the Recreational Ground (RG) area ad-measuring 869.23 square metres, totalling 5794.85 square metres. The property pertained to Survey No./Hissa No.330/6 and 330/3 of Village Dahisar, Mumbai Suburban District. The factual background reveals that respondent No.1-Society, representing flat purchasers, initiated proceedings before the Competent Authority seeking deemed conveyance. The petitioners, as original promoters/developers, had executed agreements under Section 4 of the MOFA Act with the Society's members. Disputes arose regarding the extent of land to be conveyed and the inclusion of the RG area. The Society filed Deemed Conveyance Application No.76 of 2024, annexing documents including the agreement for sale, resolution dated 11th December 2023, Architect's certificate, and sanctioned building plan. The petitioners filed objections, contending that the application was not maintainable due to lack of notarization, that they were ready to execute conveyance for a portion of land (2996 sq m of CTS No.1482/A/1/1), and that the Society had no right to the RG area. They also relied on clauses in the agreement that prohibited obstruction of a 9-metre-wide road of access. The Competent Authority, after considering the material, allowed the application and granted unilateral conveyance. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court. The legal issues considered were: (1) whether the impugned order granting deemed conveyance for an area exceeding that mentioned in the agreement was valid; (2) whether the application was maintainable without proper resolution and in prescribed Form-7; (3) whether the RG area could be included in the conveyance; and (4) whether the petitioners' right of way was affected. The petitioners argued that the order conveyed excess land, that the application lacked a valid resolution and was not in Form-7, and that the RG area was not part of the agreement. They also contended that the Society had consented to the sub-division and the right of way. Respondent No.1 argued that the Occupation Certificate was issued in 2004, but the promoter failed to convey the property, compelling the Society to seek deemed conveyance. They submitted that the agreement referred to a layout plan of 6753 sq m, and the impugned order covered only 4925.62 sq m plus RG area, which was consistent with the sanctioned plan. They further argued that the right of way was a civil right to be adjudicated by a Civil Court. The Court's analysis focused on the Competent Authority's reliance on the Architect's certificate and sanctioned plan. The Court noted that the petitioners' objections were considered and that the order was based on material on record. The Court held that the right of way claimed by the petitioners was a civil right that could not be adjudicated in deemed conveyance proceedings. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. The decision was that the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Competent Authority's order granting deemed conveyance in favour of respondent No.1-Society.
Headnote
A) MOFA - Deemed Conveyance - Section 11 - Unilateral Conveyance - The Competent Authority granted deemed conveyance of land ad-measuring 4925.62 sq m and undivided rights in RG area of 869.23 sq m to the Society. The petitioners challenged the order on grounds of excess land, lack of resolution, and non-compliance with Form-7. The Court held that the Competent Authority's order was based on material on record including Architect's certificate and sanctioned plan, and the petitioners' objections were considered. The Court found no infirmity in the order and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-10) B) MOFA - Deemed Conveyance - Maintainability - The petitioners argued that the application was not maintainable due to lack of notarization and absence of Form-7. The Court did not specifically address these procedural objections but upheld the order on merits, implying that such technicalities did not vitiate the proceedings. (Paras 6-7) C) MOFA - Deemed Conveyance - Right of Way - The petitioners claimed a 9-metre-wide right of way over the land. The Court noted that such a right is a civil right that can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court and not in deemed conveyance proceedings. (Para 9) D) MOFA - Deemed Conveyance - Recreational Ground Area - The petitioners disputed the inclusion of RG area in the conveyance. The Court upheld the Competent Authority's decision to include the RG area based on the sanctioned plan and Architect's certificate. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority's order granting unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, 1963, in respect of land including Recreational Ground area, is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15th October 2024 passed by the Competent Authority granting unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the MOFA Act in favour of respondent No.1-Society is upheld.
Law Points
- Deemed conveyance under Section 11 MOFA
- 1963
- Unilateral conveyance
- Recreational Ground area
- Right of way
- Maintainability of application
- Notarization requirement
- Form-7
- Resolution of society
- Delay in conveyance
- Civil rights adjudication
