Constitution of India (COI) — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Civil Court’s Exclusive Authority on Title Disputes

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) — Section 11 — Deemed Conveyance — Promoter’s Statutory Obligation — Scope of Competent Authority — Compliance with Sanctioned Plan

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Section 9 — Plenary Jurisdiction of Civil Courts — Adjudication of Title Disputes — Election of Remedies

(a) The writ petition was dismissed. (b) Petitioner was granted liberty to file a civil suit challenging the scope of the deemed conveyance. (c) Civil court was directed to adjudicate the matter de novo, uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment.

Subjects: Deemed Conveyance — Civil Suit — Statutory Obligation — Title Dispute — Sanctioned Plan — Competent Authority — Promoter’s Rights — Quasi-Judicial Role — FSI Utilization — Contractual Obligations

Nature of the Litigation: Writ petition challenging the Competent Authority’s order granting deemed conveyance to the cooperative housing society.

Relief Sought: Petitioner sought annulment of the deemed conveyance order passed by the Competent Authority under MOFA.

Reason for Filing: Petitioner contested that the application for deemed conveyance was premature and jurisdictionally barred due to pending civil suit on overlapping issues.

Previous Decisions: Competent Authority granted deemed conveyance, concluding that the respondent society fulfilled statutory requirements under MOFA.

Issues:

1. Whether the Competent Authority’s order under Section 11 of MOFA was jurisdictionally barred due to an existing civil suit.

2. Whether the application for deemed conveyance was premature given the incomplete development project.

3. Whether the Competent Authority’s order aligned with the statutory framework and contractual obligations.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner: (a) Contended that the pending Special Civil Suit No. 1482 of 2019 involved overlapping issues of title and contractual obligations, rendering the Competent Authority’s order premature and jurisdictionally flawed. (b) Asserted that conveyance was contingent on the completion of all planned buildings, which had not yet occurred. (c) Highlighted the Memorandum of Understanding dated July 30, 2015, affirming the petitioner’s entitlement to use residual Floor Space Index (FSI) for future construction.

Respondent: (a) Argued that the sanctioned plan dated December 24, 2010, governed the development scheme, which had been fully executed. (b) Stressed that the petitioner exhausted the permissible FSI, nullifying any claim to additional development rights. (c) Cited binding precedents supporting the society’s right to deemed conveyance despite pending civil suits.

Ratio:

(a) The Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA is limited to enforcing statutory obligations and does not extend to adjudicating title disputes. (b) Civil suits addressing proprietary rights and development entitlements remain the exclusive domain of civil courts under Section 9 of the CPC. (c) The statutory right to deemed conveyance operates independently of collateral contractual disputes.