This writ petition challenges the impugned order and certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), granting deemed conveyance to Respondent No. 2, a housing society, of land owned by the petitioner. The petitioner argues that this conveyance violates a Consent Decree from 2009, which outlined a mutual agreement on land development and ownership. The petitioner contends that the deemed conveyance disregards these terms and has approached the court seeking relief. The respondent society argues that the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal and that the petitioner failed to perform its obligations under the Consent Decree. The court must determine whether the impugned order can be challenged only through extraordinary jurisdiction.

1. Introduction

• The petition challenges an order and certificate issued on 04.03.2022 by the Deputy Registrar under MOFA.
• The petitioner claims that the deemed conveyance granted to Respondent No. 2 (the Society) violates the terms of a Consent Decree from 2009.

2. Background

2.1. Ownership and Construction

• The petitioner owns land in Mumbai, originally measuring 12,371 sq. m., with a setback area reducing it to 11,427.20 sq. m.
• In 1980, the petitioner constructed a building sold under MOFA, leading to the formation of Respondent No. 2 Society.

2.2. Disputes and Consent Terms

• Disputes led to cross suits, settled by Consent Terms in 2000, which were taken on record in 2000 and 2009.
• The Consent Terms allowed the petitioner to develop the remaining property and required mutual execution of conveyance and lease deeds.

2.3. Failure to Execute Agreements

• Despite the Consent Terms, neither party executed the required deeds, leading the Society to seek deemed conveyance from the Competent Authority without informing the petitioner.

3. Petitioner's Argument

• The petitioner argues that the deemed conveyance violates the Consent Decree and is arbitrary.
• They assert that the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to override the Consent Decree.
• The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order and enforcement of the Consent Terms, including mutual execution of deeds.

4. Respondent's Argument

• The Society contends the petitioner has an alternative remedy through an appeal.
• They argue that the petitioner failed to execute the Deed of Conveyance as required by the Consent Terms.

5. Legal Considerations

• The court must determine if the impugned order can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• The Consent Terms and Decrees clearly define the rights of both parties, negating the need for a new suit.

6. Court's Observations

• The impugned order disregards the Consent Terms and Decrees.
• The Competent Authority failed to consider the Consent Decrees properly.
• The deemed conveyance is inconsistent with the agreed terms, as it does not recognize the simultaneous execution of lease and conveyance deeds.

7. Conclusion

• The impugned order is unsustainable and should be quashed.
• The petitioner’s rights under the Consent Decrees must be upheld.
• Appropriate directions should be given to enforce the mutual execution of conveyance and lease deeds as per the Consent Terms.