Bombay High Court heard challenge to deemed conveyance order under MOFA; developer alleged res judicata due to consent decree. Developer contended that Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction under Section 11(3) when consent decree already provided for conveyance.

Writ petition challenging order of deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

Petitioners (developers) seek quashing of order dated 31 July 2025 passed by the Competent Authority granting deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent No.1 Society.

Petitioners contend that Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction due to an existing consent decree providing for conveyance and lease obligations; application barred by res judicata and consent terms.

City Civil Court passed consent decree on 25 September 2013 in LC Suit No. 901 of 2007; Competent Authority passed order dated 31 July 2025 in Application No. 52 of 2025.

Whether the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA had jurisdiction to entertain and allow the application for deemed conveyance in view of the existing consent decree dated 25 September 2013. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to bar the application for deemed conveyance given the prior consent decree. Whether the impugned order of deemed conveyance is valid when it does not incorporate the obligation of the society to execute a lease in favour of the petitioner developers.

Petitioners argued that Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction as consent decree already provided for conveyance; society’s remedy was to seek execution, not fresh application. Petitioners contended that application was barred by res judicata and relied on Nahar Seth, Ajanta LLP, Sanu Enterprises, and S. Malla Reddy. Petitioners submitted that impugned order defeated consent terms by not providing for lease back of 3,546.31 sq. m. to developers. Respondent argued that consent decree does not preclude Section 11(3) jurisdiction; failure of developers to execute conveyance constitutes failure under MOFA. Respondent submitted that Section 16 of MOFA gives overriding effect to Act over contractual terms; consent decree is contractual. Respondent contended that obligations are sequential; conveyance obligation of developers was first and has now been fulfilled by deemed conveyance, with lease obligation of society arising later. Respondent argued that res judicata does not apply as consent decree is not an adjudication on merits.

Petitioner contends that application for deemed conveyance could not have been entertained and decided in the light of parties entering into consent terms resulting in a consent decree. Mr. Damle submits that the issue involved in the Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Nahar Seth & Jogani Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Competent Authority and Anr. Mr. Khandeparkar submits that the order of the Competent Authority results in proportionate subdivision of land in accordance with GR dated 22 June 2018.

Flat purchasers formed Orchid Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Society filed LC Suit No. 901 of 2007 in City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking conveyance and restraining construction. Suit compromised; consent terms executed. Suit decreed by consent on 25 September 2013. Consent terms provided for conveyance of 13,629.84 sq. m., relinquishment of claim over 2,662.98 sq. m., and execution of 99‑year lease by society over 3,546.31 sq. m. in favour of developers. Society filed Application No. 52 of 2025 before Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA for deemed conveyance. Competent Authority allowed application and issued certificate of deemed conveyance on 31 July 2025 for 13,578.293 sq. m. and building. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6063 of 2026 impugning said order.

• Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963: Section 11(3), Section 16