The competent authority under MOFA must properly examine the legality and validity of the deed of conveyance and consider the applicant's eligibility and the promoter's compliance with the obligations under MOFA. The competent authority's jurisdiction is not ministerial and requires a proper examination of the facts and legal issues.

JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

1. The present Writ Petition impugns an order dated 15th June, 2019, by which, Respondent No. 1 being the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of Construction, Sale Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) has dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 11 of MOFA seeking a deemed conveyance in respect of land more particularly set out in the said Application.

2. The relevant facts are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society comprising of about 50 members. Respondent No. 2 is a Family Trust and the owner of two plots of land bearing plot No. 149 admeasuring 1600 sq. yards and plot No. 156 admeasuring 1800 sq. yards.

(ii) In or about the year 1970-1971, Respondent No. 2 being desirous of developing the said plots, amalgamated the same. Respondent No. 2 thereafter constructed and built a building having basement + ground floor (part stilt + part shops) + four upper floors after obtaining various approvals from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).

(iii) Respondent No. 2 thereafter sold shops and flats to various purchasers under various Agreements for Sale. One such Agreement is annexed to the Petition. Clause 3 of the said Agreement inter alia specifically provides that Respondent No. 2 would convey the said land to a Co-operative Society of the premises-acquirers which were to be registered in pursuance of the said Agreement. However, despite the passage of about 40 years, Respondent No. 2 failed and neglected to convey the said land and building to the Petitioner.

(iv) In the year 2014, approximately 39 years after construction of the said building and shops, Respondent No. 3, who was also director and promoter of one M/s. Shri Sati Builders and Developers Private Limited approached the office bearers of Petitioner-Society with a proposal for redevelopment of Society’s building. The redevelopment contemplated demolishing the old building and constructing a new one in place and stead thereof. Respondent No. 3 also agreed to convey the said plot in favour of the Petitioner. It is thus that a development agreement came to be executed between the Petitioner-Society and M/s. Shri Sati Builders and Developers Private Limited.

(v) Consequent to the above, on 30th December, 2014, a Deed of Conveyance came to be executed between Respondent No. 3 on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other. Under the Deed of Conveyance, Respondent No. 3 reserved an area of 13,755 sq. ft. (built up) for himself. It appears that thereafter the said Deed of Conveyance was submitted to the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai Suburban for adjudication of proper stamp duty. The Collector of Stamps thereafter adjudicated the stamp duty at Rs.11,61,300/- including the interest and penalty. It is an undisputed position that the said Deed of Conveyance is not registered.

(vi) Thereafter there was a change in the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Society, at which time, the new Committee members realized that the Conveyance Deed dated 30th December, 2014 executed by Respondent No. 3 was bad in law. The objections of the new Managing Committee were pointed out to Respondent No. 3, who did not accept the same.

(vii) The Petitioner was thereafter advised to file an Application under Section 11 of MOFA for deemed conveyance of the said land and building and it was thus that the said Application came to be filed. Respondent No. 2 and 3 filed a Miscellaneous Application raising a preliminary ground of objection seeking dismissal of the Application filed by the Petitioner on the ground that a Deed of Conveyance had already been executed in favour of the Petitioner- Society. The Application filed by Respondent No. 3 came to be allowed by the impugned order in which Respondent No. 1 has held as follows:

“6. The Deemed Conveyance Application filed by the applicant society for granting unilateral deemed conveyance cannot be entert