The court upheld unilateral deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Act, affirming procedural compliance and the validity of notice issuance despite the petitioner's claims of insufficient service.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court which refused to interfere with the order of ‘unilateral deemed conveyance’ issued by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963¹[for short, ‘the Act of 1963’]. The petitioner-builder’s contention is that the petitioner was not issued with a notice and afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing as stipulated under the Act of 1963 read with Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964²[for short, ‘the Rules of 1964’]. Based on the above order of the Competent Authority, a deed of conveyance was registered by the Sub- Registrar, Haveli No.17, Pune, which, as a consequence was refused to be interfered with by the impugned judgment.

2. In the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge noticed that the building was constructed on a plot admeasuring 3031 sq. meters out of which 1157 sq. meters was deducted for road widening. The conveyance was of the balance land of 1874 sq. meters as is indicated in the occupancy certificate which is also evidenced from the report of the Architect of the petitioner, dated 29.08.2023.

3. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner would contend that deliberately a wrong address was shown in the application filed before the Competent Authority. From Annexure P1; the order passed by the Competent Authority, it is pointed out that the address of the respondent-society and the builder is one and the same. From the sale agreement entered into with the purchasers, it is pointed out that the address of the registered office of the petitioner was clearly shown therein. It is also pointed out from the Rules of 1964 that the service can be effected only by way of registered post, acknowledgement due and the publication made, in that circumstances cannot be accepted.

4. Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-society, on the other hand would submit that notice was issued on the same address since the petitioner was also having an office in the building constructed. The petitioner had not issued the conveyance despite the registration of a society of the flat owners and in such circumstances, the society was constrained to proceed under the Act of 1963. The notice was issued which was returned, it is argued, deliberately an attempt to avoid service and in that circumstance, the publication was taken out with leave of the Competent Authority. It is also pointed out that there were various civil proceedings pending between the society and the builder, which fact is suppressed by the petitioner. The society had filed a suit for injunction, in which the temporary injunction prayed for, was rejected against which they have approached the appellate court, being the District Court, Pune. In the very same suit, defendants too had filed an application seeking an order of status quo which was declined for reason of a status quo order existing in MCA No.263 of 2024 issued on 25.10.2024 by the District Court. The said appeal was filed against the rejection of an injunction application in a suit filed by the builder/petitioner against the Municipal Corporation, wherein, deliberately the respondent-society was not impleaded. The appeal stood dismissed against which a writ petition is filed before the High Court in which there is a status quo order.

5. The respondent-society approached the Competent Authority under the Act of 1963 as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 11 , which enable