The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the deemed conveyance granted to Oasis CHS Ltd. under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management, and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). The court upheld the conveyance order despite the petitioners' claim of excess land being conveyed. The petitioners, as promoters, had failed to execute the conveyance deed for over 36 years, leading the court to deny them any relief. The court reiterated that deemed conveyance does not settle title disputes, leaving the petitioners the option to pursue a civil suit.

1. Parties and Representation:

• Petitioners: Luis Gabriel Nicholas Cardoz & Ors.
• Respondents: Oasis CHS Ltd. & Ors.
• Counsel: Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud for the petitioners, Mr. Rohan Savant for the respondents.

2. Core Issue:

• The petitioners challenged the legality of the deemed conveyance granted to Oasis CHS Ltd. under Section 11 of MOFA, claiming that the conveyance included more land (1002.50 sq. mtrs.) than what was originally agreed in the flat purchase agreement (919 sq. mtrs.).

3. Petitioners' Arguments:

• Section 4 Agreement: The conveyance cannot exceed the terms agreed in the sale agreement.
• Deemed Conveyance: Should be limited to 919 sq. mtrs., not the granted 1002.50 sq. mtrs.
• Cited Precedents: Riddhi Gardens case and other similar cases to support the claim of limiting the conveyed area.

4. Respondents' Arguments:

• Area Certificate: Architect's certificate validated the area of 1002.50 sq. mtrs. based on different methods, including property card and proportionate land rights.
• Previous Orders: The deemed conveyance had been corrected via a corrigendum after considering the area certificate.
• Legal Precedents: Referenced cases where deemed conveyance did not conclude title disputes, emphasizing that the petitioners can file a civil suit.

5. Legal Framework:

• MOFA, 1963: Section 11 requires promoters to execute conveyance within two years of the society's registration.
• Conveyance Delays: The petitioners, as promoters, failed to execute the conveyance for 36 years, violating MOFA’s obligations.
• Right to File Suit: The court noted that the deemed conveyance does not conclude ownership issues, allowing the petitioners to pursue civil remedies if needed.

6. Court's Observations:

• Promoters' Default: The petitioners’ failure to perform their statutory duty to convey the property within the prescribed time disqualifies them from relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• No Retained Rights: The court observed that the petitioners had not retained any rights to the property after selling it in 1979.
• Challenge Misconceived: Since no rights were retained, the petition to challenge the conveyance of plots 3 and 4 was unfounded.

7. Conclusion and Ruling:

• Dismissal: The petition was dismissed, with no interference in the deemed conveyance order. The petitioners were advised to approach a civil court for any title-related grievances.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA):
  • Section 11: Obligation of promoters to execute conveyance.
  • Section 5A: Role of the Competent Authority.
  • Section 4: Agreement between flat purchasers and promoters.
  • Section 13: Penalty for failure to execute conveyance.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court emphasized the statutory obligations under MOFA for promoters to execute the conveyance within two years of society registration. Failure to comply for 36 years bars the petitioners from seeking equitable relief under Article 226. Additionally, deemed conveyance does not resolve title disputes, leaving parties the option to file civil suits to establish their rights.

Subjects:

Property Law, Deemed Conveyance, Cooperative Housing Societies

Promoters’ Obligations, MOFA, Cooperative Housing, Property Dispute, Article 226