Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the order dated 14 July 2022 passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane, in Application No.186 of 2022 under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), granting deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent No.3 Society. The petitioner, a housing company and developer, sought to quash and set aside the impugned order. The respondent No.3 was a co-operative housing society that had applied for deemed conveyance. Respondent No.4 was another party, likely a flat purchaser or adjacent society, and the State was represented by the Assistant Government Pleader. The petitioner alleged that the competent authority passed the order without making the petitioner a party to the proceedings, in violation of principles of natural justice. It also contended that adjacent societies located on the undivided larger land parcel were not joined as parties, though they were adversely affected. The petitioner asserted that the area granted to Respondent No.3 Society was incorrect—either 2,304 sq. mtrs. or 2,340 sq. mtrs. as claimed—and that no proper reasons were given for granting that specific area. The petitioner pointed out that the Architect Certificate dated 28 February 2022 was the sole basis for the impugned order, other material was ignored, and the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 was not followed. The petitioner also referred to a pending Suit No.763 of 2013 filed by the petitioner and Respondent No.4 against Respondent No.3 regarding obstruction of open space. Further, the petitioner relied on consent terms dated 6 September 1978 in Bombay High Court Suit No.1210 of 1986, which allegedly conferred development rights on the petitioner. The petitioner cited an order dated 4 August 2023 in Writ Petition No.9597 of 2023 where a similar deemed conveyance order was set aside for non-impleadment and remanded. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable because of natural justice violations and absence of disputed title questions, relying on several precedents including R v. Sussex Justices, A.H. Wadia Trust v. State of Maharashtra, Tushar Jivram Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, and others. Respondent No.3, on the other hand, contended that there were disputed questions of title and facts, and therefore the writ petition should not be entertained. Relying on ACME Enterprises v. Registrar, Coop. Societies, the respondent argued that the inquiry under Section 11 of MOFA is summary in nature and cannot decide title; a party can agitate title before a civil court. The respondent also argued that the petitioner failed to perform its statutory duty to convey the property, that the petitioner's rights under the consent terms had extinguished after 12 years, and that the order in another writ petition cannot be a binding precedent. Respondent No.4 submitted that Clause 20 of the Sale Agreement provided for a single co-operative society for all buildings on the larger property, and that conveyance was to be executed only after full development; it also alleged obstruction of common open recreational space. The court heard extensive submissions from all parties but, in the provided excerpt, no final reasoning, analysis, or operative order is available as the text ends mid-sentence during Respondent No.4's submissions. Therefore, the final decision of the court cannot be determined from the given material.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Deemed Conveyance Order - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Petitioner contended that the writ petition is maintainable because the impugned order violates principles of natural justice and no disputed questions of title are involved, while respondents argued that disputed questions of title and facts bar writ remedy; the court heard submissions but no final holding is available in the provided excerpt (Paras 3(viii), 4(i)). B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Non-impleadment of Affected Parties - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227; Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Section 11(3) - Petitioner argued that it was not made a party to the deemed conveyance proceedings and adjacent societies on the undivided larger land parcel were also not joined, violating principles of natural justice; the court noted the contention but no ruling is visible (Paras 3(i)-(ii), 4). C) Property Law - Deemed Conveyance - Scope of Inquiry by Competent Authority - Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Section 11(3) - Respondents relied on ACME Enterprises to argue that the competent authority's inquiry under Section 11 is summary and cannot decide title, while petitioner argued the authority must conduct proper inquiry and consider all documents; the court heard both submissions without a final decision in the excerpt (Paras 4(ii), 3(ix)). D) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata / Precedent - Binding Effect of an Order in Another Writ Petition - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Petitioner cited an order dated 4 August 2023 in Writ Petition No.9597 of 2023 setting aside a similar deemed conveyance for non-impleadment, but respondent argued such an order is not a judgment and cannot be a binding precedent relying on Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra; the court noted the conflicting submissions without a final determination (Paras 3(xiii), 4(v)). E) Contract Law - Consent Terms - Extinguishment of Development Rights - Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Section 11(3) - Petitioner claimed rights under consent terms dated 6 September 1978 in Bombay High Court Suit No.1210 of 1986, while respondent contended those rights existed only for 12 years and have extinguished; the court heard arguments but no final holding in the provided text (Paras 3(xii), 4(vi)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 14 July 2022 granting deemed conveyance under Section 11(3) of MOFA is invalid for non-impleadment of the petitioner and other affected parties and violation of natural justice; whether the writ petition is maintainable despite alleged disputed questions of title; whether the competent authority failed to conduct proper inquiry and consider relevant material.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice require all affected parties be heard before grant of deemed conveyance
- Competent Authority under Section 11(3) MOFA has summary jurisdiction but must not act mechanically
- writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 maintainable for violation of natural justice even if disputed facts
- deemed conveyance inquiry is limited and cannot decide title questions
- affected parties may pursue civil suit for title
