Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Challenge to Deemed Conveyance in Favor of Cooperative Housing Society — Additional FSI Rights Not a Bar to Conveyance Under MOFA. The Court held that the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain a second application for deemed conveyance after rejection of the first, and the developer's claim over additional FSI does not prevent conveyance of land to the society.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Ariisto Realtors Private Limited, a developer, challenged an order dated 14 July 2025 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (Competent Authority) granting a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building in favor of Respondent No. 2 Society, formed by flat purchasers of the building 'Ariisto Cloud'. The developer had constructed the building on land owned by Respondents 3 to 5 under a Development Agreement dated 3 March 2010 and a Supplementary Deed of the same date. A Tripartite Deed of Irrevocable Perpetual Lease dated 9 September 2011 was executed between the developer, landowners, and another society (Kum Kum Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Limited), which permitted the developer to utilize additional FSI arising from the land. The developer claimed that additional FSI of 841.16 sq.m. became available under DCPR 2034 and that it had applied to the Municipal Corporation for its utilization. The society had earlier filed an application for deemed conveyance which was rejected on 10 March 2025. The society filed a second application, which was allowed by the Competent Authority on 14 July 2025, leading to the present petition. The main legal issue was whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to entertain a second application after rejection of the first, and whether the developer's claim over additional FSI could prevent conveyance. The Court held that the rejection of the first application does not operate as res judicata, and the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent application. The Court further held that the developer's right to additional FSI, being a contractual right, does not create an interest in the land that can defeat the society's statutory right to conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of deemed conveyance, but clarified that the developer's rights under the tripartite deed regarding additional FSI would be protected and could be enforced separately.

Headnote

A) Cooperative Housing Society - Deemed Conveyance - Jurisdiction of Competent Authority - Section 11, Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - The Competent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain a second application for deemed conveyance after rejection of the first application, as the rejection does not operate as res judicata. The developer's claim over additional FSI does not bar conveyance of land to the society. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Additional FSI - Rights of Developer - Development Agreement - The developer's right to utilize additional FSI under a tripartite deed does not create an interest in the land that can defeat the society's right to conveyance under MOFA. The society is entitled to conveyance of the land and building, and the developer's FSI rights can be protected by appropriate conditions. (Paras 5-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 has jurisdiction to entertain a second application for deemed conveyance after the first application was rejected, and whether the developer's claim over additional FSI can be a ground to oppose such conveyance.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the order dated 14 July 2025 granting certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in favor of Respondent No. 2 Society. The Court held that the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the second application and that the developer's claim over additional FSI did not bar conveyance. The Court clarified that the developer's rights under the tripartite deed would be protected and could be enforced separately.

Law Points

  • Deemed conveyance
  • Jurisdiction of Competent Authority
  • Res judicata
  • Additional FSI
  • Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act
  • 1963
  • Section 11
  • Section 4
  • Development Agreement
  • Tripartite Lease
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 24

Writ Petition No.12863 of 2025

2026-07-17

Sandeep V. Marne

Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Kacheria, Mr. Bhavik Mehta and Ms. Hetal Jobanputra i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Petitioner; Ms. Vinodini Srinivasan i/b Prakash & Co. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5; Ms. Vaishali S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent-State.

Ariisto Realtors Private Limited

District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition challenging an order of the Competent Authority granting certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building in favor of a cooperative housing society.

Remedy Sought

The Petitioner (developer) sought to quash the order dated 14 July 2025 granting deemed conveyance and to restrain the society from claiming conveyance.

Filing Reason

The developer opposed conveyance of land to the society on the ground that it had rights over additional FSI arising from the land, and that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second application after rejection of the first.

Previous Decisions

The society's first application for deemed conveyance was rejected on 10 March 2025. The second application was allowed on 14 July 2025.

Issues

Whether the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain a second application for deemed conveyance after rejection of the first application. Whether the developer's claim over additional FSI can be a ground to oppose conveyance of land to the society.

Submissions/Arguments

The Petitioner argued that the rejection of the first application operated as res judicata and the Competent Authority could not entertain a second application. The Petitioner argued that the society was not entitled to conveyance as the developer had rights over additional FSI under the tripartite deed. The Respondents argued that the rejection of the first application was without prejudice and the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to consider the second application. The Respondents argued that the society's right to conveyance under MOFA was independent of the developer's contractual rights over FSI.

Ratio Decidendi

The rejection of a first application for deemed conveyance does not operate as res judicata, and the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent application. The developer's contractual right to additional FSI does not create an interest in the land that can defeat the society's statutory right to conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA. The society is entitled to conveyance of the land and building, and the developer's FSI rights can be protected by appropriate conditions.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petition is filed by a developer who is opposing conveyance of the land in favour of the organization of flat purchasers with a view to exploit the additional FSI arising from the land due to change in the FSI regime. The main grievance of the Petitioner is about jurisdiction exercised by the Competent Authority in entertaining second application for deemed conveyance after rejection of the first application vide order dated 10 March 2025.

Procedural History

The society filed a first application for deemed conveyance which was rejected on 10 March 2025. The society filed a second application, which was allowed by the Competent Authority on 14 July 2025. The developer filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 14 July 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963: Section 4, Section 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Challenge to Deemed Conveyance in Favor of Cooperative Housing Society — Additional FSI Rights Not a Bar to Conveyance Under MOFA. The Court held that the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain a s...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Suit in Family Partition Dispute, Sets Aside Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.