High Court Allows Writ Petition, Quashes Deemed Conveyance Orders and Certificates Due to Jurisdictional Error and Violation of Natural Justice in Property Rights Dispute Involving Deceased Landowner's Heirs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders and deeds related to deemed conveyance of property

The Petitioner sought quashing of the Deemed Conveyance Order and Certificate dated 11.05.2022, the Corrigendum Order dated 06.06.2023, the Registered Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Deed dated 19.07.2022, the Registered Supplementary Agreement dated 10.08.2023, and the mutation entry effected on 30.11.2023

Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, jurisdictional error by Competent Authority, and violation of natural justice principles leading to unlawful deprivation of property rights

Deemed Conveyance Order and Certificate dated 11.05.2022, Corrigendum Order dated 06.06.2023, Registered Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Deed dated 19.07.2022, Registered Supplementary Agreement dated 10.08.2023, mutation entry effected on 30.11.2023

Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to proceed with the deemed conveyance application against a deceased person without proper substitution of legal heirs Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the proceedings leading to the impugned orders and deeds

Arguments of the Petitioner The petitioner principally argued that: The Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA has only limited and summary jurisdiction and could not convey land beyond the property covered by the flat purchasers' agreements. There was a discrepancy between the property mentioned in the MOFA agreements and the land actually conveyed. The Society had failed to establish a valid chain of development rights from the original landowner to the developer. The proceedings were allegedly fraudulent because the original landowner had died in 1995 but was shown as a party to the proceedings and notices were allegedly issued in his name. The petitioner alleged that a forged NOC bearing her signature had been relied upon. She contended that she had not been properly served and was denied an effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating natural justice. It was argued that once the principal deemed conveyance order was found to be void, the subsequent registered deed, corrigendum, supplementary agreement and mutation entry would also necessarily fail. 5. Arguments of the Respondents / Position Considered by Court The respondents' position, as recorded by the Court, was that the deemed conveyance order merely enforced the statutory obligation under Section 11 of MOFA and did not constitute an adjudication of title. The Court also noted that the proceedings were primarily based upon documentary material, including registered agreements, the Society's registration certificate, sanctioned plans and built-up-area details. On natural justice, the record showed that one of the legal representatives had participated in the proceedings and several other legal heirs had given their no objection to the deemed conveyance. Therefore, according to the Court, the estate of the deceased owner was sufficiently represented.

Proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA are summary in nature and the Competent Authority cannot conclusively adjudicate complicated disputes relating to title, ownership, extent of land or development rights. A deemed conveyance operates only to the extent of the right, title and interest actually possessed by the promoter and does not enlarge his title. Where the landowner disputes the extent or validity of the conveyance, the appropriate remedy is a substantive civil suit.

1. Nature of Section 11 MOFA proceedings “The Competent Authority exercises a limited and summary jurisdiction.” The Court explained that the Competent Authority's role is confined to enforcing the promoter's statutory obligation to execute conveyance and that it is not a civil court competent to decide complicated ownership or title disputes. 2. Effect of a Deemed Conveyance “A deemed conveyance results only in transfer of such right, title and interest as the promoter actually possesses.” The Court held that a deemed conveyance does not enlarge the promoter's title. If the conveyance includes a larger extent of land or rights than legally available, the affected party can approach the civil court. 3. Disputed questions of title “These are not pure questions of jurisdiction. They are mixed questions of fact and law.” The Court held that questions concerning the extent of land conveyed, inclusion of structures, validity of development rights and proprietary claims require examination of documents, historical transactions, revenue records and possibly evidence. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken under Article 227. 4. Rights of the petitioner not extinguished The Court clarified that even assuming that a larger area was conveyed than contractually agreed, the petitioner's substantive rights were not extinguished. She could establish her rights before the civil court and seek appropriate declaratory and consequential relief. 5. Natural Justice The Court relied upon State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706, holding that violation of natural justice does not automatically invalidate an order. The decisive consideration is whether the alleged denial of hearing resulted in real prejudice and whether a further hearing could have affected the outcome. 6. Application to the present case The Court found that one of the legal representatives had participated in the proceedings and several other legal heirs had submitted their no objection. Therefore, the estate of the deceased owner was considered sufficiently represented before the Competent Authority. 7. Civil Court as the proper remedy “The proper course for the petitioner is to institute a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition if so advised, cancellation or rectification of the conveyance, and any other appropriate relief.” The Court expressly left all factual and legal contentions open for determination by the competent civil court. 8. Final operative portion “For these reasons, the petition is dismissed.” The petitioner was relegated to the civil remedy, all questions were kept open, and there was no order as to costs.

he original landowner, Late Laxman Pandurang Thakur, was the owner of the property bearing Survey No. 239 Hissa No. 1 and Survey No. 182 Hissa No. 10, corresponding to CTS No. 1732. He died on 27 June 1995, leaving behind the petitioner and other legal heirs. Respondent No. 1–Society was registered on 3 February 1989. Subsequently, the Society sought unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA. On 1 April 2021, the Society filed Application No. 101 of 2021 before the District Deputy Registrar. The deceased original landowner was initially shown as a respondent. Notices were issued in his name despite his death. On 11 May 2022, the District Deputy Registrar passed the Deemed Conveyance Order and issued the Certificate. The Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Deed was registered on 19 July 2022. Thereafter, corrigendum proceedings took place, followed by a Supplementary Agreement dated 10 August 2023. On 30 November 2023, mutation was effected in the Property Card in favour of the Society. The petitioner stated that she became aware of the redevelopment and deemed conveyance only in October 2025. The petitioner thereafter invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 227, challenging the deemed conveyance order, certificate, registered deed, corrigendum, supplementary agreement and mutation entry. The High Court heard the matter, reserved judgment on 29 January 2026, and pronounced judgment on 6 February 2026. The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the remedy of a civil suit.

• Constitution of India: Article 227
• Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963: Section 11