1. Dispute over deemed conveyance under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act involving a larger plot partitioned by a dissolution deed into two distinct portions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 669
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Arunkumar H Shah Huf - Appellant
Versus
Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5377 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5432 of 2021)
Decided On : 21-04-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Suraj Iyer, Adv. Ms. Gauri Joshi, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shah, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rongon Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sahay, Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mr. Yatin R Shah, Adv. Mrs. Aparna Rohatgi Jain, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Sanyat Lodha, AOR Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Mr. Mac Bodhanwalla, Adv. Mr. Sheroy Bodhanwalla, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. Mr. Divyam Khera, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kharde, Adv. Mr. Sunny Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Suraj Iyer, Adv. Ms. Gauri Joshi, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shah, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rongon Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sahay, Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mr. Yatin R Shah, Adv. Mrs. Aparna Rohatgi Jain, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Sanyat Lodha, AOR Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Mr. Mac Bodhanwalla, Adv. Mr. Sheroy Bodhanwalla, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. Mr. Divyam Khera, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kharde, Adv. Mr. Sunny Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR
The competent authority under the MOFA has limited powers and cannot conclusively decide title disputes, allowing aggrieved parties to file civil suits.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Section 11 - Deemed conveyance - The competent authority granted deemed conveyance of the larger plot to the first respondent, subject to executing a permanent lease in favor of the appellant for the Arun plot - The court emphasized that the competent authority's powers are quasi-judicial and cannot conclusively decide title disputes, allowing aggrieved parties to file civil suits - The provisions of the MOFA are designed to protect flat purchasers and ensure speedy remedies - The appeal was dismissed as the impugned order was not manifestly illegal. (Paras 35, 36, 37)
(B) Jurisdiction of Competent Authority - The competent authority under Section 11(3) of the MOFA has limited powers and cannot adjudicate on disputed questions of title - The proceedings are summary in nature, and the aggrieved parties retain the right to file civil suits. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the deemed conveyance order issued by the competent authority regarding a larger plot, which was part of a partnership dissolution deed. The appellant claimed rights over the Arun plot, while the first respondent sought conveyance of the Lalbhai plot.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the competent authority's order, confirming the deemed conveyance while protecting the appellant's rights as a perpetual lessee.
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the MOFA and the rights of the parties concerning the Arun plot and the Lalbhai plot.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the competent authority's powers are limited and cannot resolve title disputes, emphasizing the need for civil suits for such matters.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The competent authority under MOFA Section 11(3) has limited powers and cannot conclusively decide title disputes; aggrieved parties may file civil suits. (!) - Section 11 creates a remedy for unilateral deemed conveyance to flat purchasers, but it does not finalize title, and proceedings are summary and quasi-judicial; reasons must be recorded. (!) (!) (!) - The registering officer under Section 11(5) can only register the deemed conveyance and cannot sit in appeal over the competent authority’s order; grounds for refusal are limited to specified conditions. (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the competent authority has jurisdiction to grant deemed conveyance over land not subject to flat purchase agreements or to adjudicate disputed questions of title. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. The competent authority exercises quasi-judicial powers in summary proceedings and cannot conclusively decide title, while the registration officer's powers under Section 11(5) are limited and non-appellate. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
4. Summary proceedings under Section 11(3) MOFA do not preclude civil suits for title, and registration officers cannot reopen findings of the competent authority under Section 11(5). (Para 37 )
5. Appeal dismissed; order of the competent authority granting deemed conveyance subject to a permanent lease in favor of the non-promoter party is upheld. (Para 36 , 38 )
6. What is the scope of the competent authority's power to decide title disputes under Section 11(3) of the MOFA?
The competent authority exercises quasi-judicial powers through summary proceedings and cannot conclusively or finally decide questions of title. Consequently, aggrieved parties maintain the right to file a civil suit to establish their legal rights notwithstanding any order issued under sub-section (4) of Section 11. (Para 19 , 20 , 37 )
7. What are the limitations on the registration officer's powers under Section 11(5) of the MOFA?
The registration officer is neither an appellate nor revisional authority and cannot reopen or set aside findings of the competent authority. Their power is limited to verifying statutory permissions, court restraints, and procedural requirements such as the payment of stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908. (Para 22 , 23 , 37 )
8. Under what circumstances will a writ court interfere with an order granting deemed conveyance under Section 11(4) of the MOFA?
Writ courts should generally be slow to interfere with such orders unless they are manifestly illegal. This is because the MOFA is beneficial legislation designed to protect flat purchasers, and the availability of a civil suit for title disputes provides an adequate remedy for aggrieved parties. (Para 35 , 37 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL DETAILS
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25th February 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. To appreciate the controversy, a brief reference to the facts of the case would be necessary.
3. One Champaben Hiralal Shah owned a plot of land being Final Plot No.61 in Town Planning Scheme III, Vile Parle (West), admeasuring 2814.38 sq.mtrs. (for short ‘the larger plot’). On 1st April 1972, Champaben Hiralal Shah and the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of her three sons, Lalbhai, Ranjit and Arun, constituted a partnership firm M/s. CH Shah & Sons (for short, ‘the firm’) by executing a deed of partnership. The larger plot was Champaben Hiralal Shah's contribution to the firm's capital. After the death of Champaben, the firm was reconstituted, amongst the rest of the partners, as per the deed of reconstitution dated 30th June 1983.
4. A deed of dissolution of partnership was executed on 13th February 1987 (‘the deed of dissolution’) by which the firm was dissolved. The larger plot was partitioned between one Lalbhai H. Shah (predecessor of the 2nd to 5th respondents) and one Arun H. Shah (the Karta of the appellant). Under the deed of dissolution dated 13th February 1987, the portion of the larger plot shown in a verged blue colour line on a plan attached (for short, ‘Lalbhai Plot’) was allotted to Lalbhai, being the Manager and Karta of Lalbhai Hiralal Shah HUF. The remaining portion of the larger plot below building No.3 and the land surrounding it, shown in a verged yellow line (for short ‘the Arun Plot’), was allotted to Arun as the Karta and manager of Arun Hiralal Shah HUF (the appellant). It was provided that construction on the Lalbhai Plot will be restricted to the development potential thereof, and the construction on the Arun Plot will be restricted to the development potential thereof in accordance with the prevailing Development Control Regulations. Lalbhai took over the firm as the sole proprietor. It was provided that if Lalbhai transfers his interest in favour of an organisation of flat purchasers, then Lalbhai/such organisation would execute a perpetual lease in favour of the appellant or its nominees in respect of the Arun plot.
5. 10th Respondent firm was constituted with Lalbhai as one of its partners by a deed of partnership dated 30th March 1987. Lalbhai brought in the Lalbhai Plot as his capital contribution to the firm. The 10th respondent constructed a building consisting of two wings, each with ground plus two upper floors on the Lalbhai Plot. The 10th respondent entered into flat purchase agreements (for short, ‘the FPAs’) from the year 1991 onwards with the flat purchasers in respect of flats in the building. It was claimed that the FPAs were executed in terms of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1963 (for short, ‘the MOFA’). On 6th November 1993, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the MCGM’) issued an occupation certificate in respect of the building. It is pointed out by the appellant that the first respondent, a co-operative society of the flat purchasers in the building constructed on Lalbhai Plot, was formed and registered on 15th July 2005.
6. The first respondent filed a complaint before the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai, seeking conveyance of only the Lalbhai Plot. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the 10th respondent to convey the Lalbhai plot to the first respondent by order dated 19th August 2017.
7. Thereafter, on 13th January 2020, the first respondent filed an application under Section 11(3) of the MOFA seeking a deemed conveyance of the Lalbhai Plot along with the portion of Arun Plot (totally admeasuring 2,753 sq. mtrs). The conveyance was sought of the larger plot. But after taking into account the road setback area of 131.40 sq. met
