Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chaitanya Nikte, Ritvij A. Kale and Prajit Sahane.
For the Respondents: Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP, Sachin Mandlik and Sayali Phansikar i/by Mandlik and Partners.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with the corresponding references:

1. The Court emphasized that the Competent Authority must adhere to statutory obligations and government guidelines, particularly the Government Resolution dated 22nd June 2018, when issuing deemed conveyance certificates. This includes proper measurement of the land and assessment of entitlement (!) .

2. The case involved a challenge to a unilateral deemed conveyance certificate issued for a lesser area (1103.55 sq.mtrs.) than claimed (1643.79 sq.mtrs.), due to alleged non-compliance by the promoter with statutory obligations (!) (!) .

3. The facts revealed that the Petitioner Society is constructed on a larger land area and had entered into agreements with flat purchasers, with construction commencing in 2003 and possession handed over to flat purchasers. The Society was registered in 2006 (!) (!) .

4. The promoter failed to convey the land and building within the stipulated period, and the application for deemed conveyance was filed due to this non-compliance. The initial application was based on an architect’s certificate indicating the area to be conveyed (!) (!) .

5. The Competent Authority issued a conveyance certificate based on the revised layout sanctioned in 2017, which resulted in a lesser area being conveyed than originally claimed. The Court found this to be improper because the obligations were based on the layout at the time of agreements, not the revised plan (!) (!) .

6. The Court noted that the statutory scheme under Section 11 of MOFA obligates the promoter to convey land and building within a specific period, and upon failure, the authority must enforce unilateral conveyance based on the original agreements, not revised plans (!) (!) .

7. The Court observed that the Competent Authority did not sufficiently consider the guidelines of the Government Resolution of 22nd June 2018, which mandates that conveyance should include land necessary to support the constructed structures and proportionate common amenities. The authority failed to conduct the required measurement exercise (!) (!) .

8. The Court held that the order of the Competent Authority was flawed because it relied solely on the revised sanctioned plan without proper inquiry into the land area needed to sustain the construction, as per the guidelines. The order was therefore set aside and remanded for a fresh decision (!) (!) .

9. The Court clarified that the issue of entitlement to unutilized FSI or additional FSI is outside the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority and is subject to civil proceedings. The authority’s role is limited to enforcing the obligations under the statutory scheme and the original agreements (!) (!) .

10. The final order was to quash the previous order and remand the matter to the Competent Authority for a re-evaluation of the application, ensuring compliance with the government guidelines and proper measurement procedures. The application was to be decided afresh in accordance with the law (!) (!) .

If you need further analysis or specific legal advice, please let me know.