V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Shri Balsara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 7.

2. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 – District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai City (3), who is the Competent Authority, appointed under section 5 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as “MOFA Act”). The Petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed by Respondent No.1, in which it was observed that only after the said conditions are complied with, the deemed conveyance will be executed as per the provisions of Section 11 of the MOFA Act.

3. Brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition, are as under:

Respondent No.3 was the owner of larger plot of land bearing CTS No. 57, admeasuring 22,407.20 sq.mtrs. He executed an agreement for sale dated 12th March, 1988 along with an irrevocable power of attorney dated 19th April, 1991 in favour of Respondent No.2. In view of the said agreement, executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.2, the developer constructed various buildings on the larger plot of land. The said larger plot of land later on, has been divided into five parts being Plot No. A, Plot No. B, Plot No. C, Plot No. D and Plot No. E and new CTS numbers were given to the said plots. The Petitioner is a society, which is concerned with the sub-divided plots being CTS No. 57E. Respondent No.2-Developer constructed two buildings viz. Sushil Samir and row houses, and sold the flats therein to various persons who are the members of the Petitioner Society. Under the agreement for sale, Respondent No.2 had given an assurance that on completion of the project, he would convey the plot in favour of the purchasers of the Petitioner Society. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite several representations being made by them after completion of the construction of the buildings, Respondent No.2 did not convey the property to the ultimate flat purchasers.

4. The MOFA Act was amended and the Competent Authority was appointed under section 5A of the MOFA Act, authorizing him to issue a certification of deemed conveyance after holding an inquiry under Section 11 of the MOFA Act.

5. Since Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not convey the property as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, the society approached the Competent Authority appointed under Section 5 A of the MOFA Act and filed an application for deemed conveyance. The Competent Authority made an inquiry and passed the impugned order dated 4th June, 2012. By the said order, the Competent Authority was pleased to certify that the Petitioner was entitled to unilateral conveyance executed as deemed conveyance in its favour and to have it registered and came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where the Petitioner was entitled to get the conveyance. The Deputy Registrar in the said order observed that the said conveyance would be granted subject to the Petitioner fulfiling the five conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said order and in para 3, he further directed that the Applicant Society is authorized to prepare a Conveyance Deed after the conditions, ascertained in paragraph Nos. 2 (i) to (v), are completed.

6. Being aggrieved by the said conditions, which were imposed by the Competent Authority, the Petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Shri Kamdar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the condition Nos. 2(i),