The right to deemed conveyance under the MOFA Act matures upon execution of the agreement and payment, and cannot be delayed by the developer's inaction.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the impugned Judgment and Order passed by respondent No. 1, which dismissed the petitioner’s application for the conferment of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management, and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, the “MOFA Act”). The petitioner principally relies on three grounds for its challenge: firstly, that the developer has not yet availed the full Floor Space Index (FSI) available for the development; secondly, that, as per the terms of the agreement governing the transaction, the right to conveyance is conditioned upon the complete redevelopment of all constituent societies; and thirdly, that the Architect’s certificate tendered in support of the proposal is erroneous. These contentions, if sustained, would undermine the validity of the impugned decision and the consequent rejection of the petitioner’s plea for deemed conveyance.

2. The petitioner, having instituted the proceedings, submitted a proposal on 8th March 2022 before respondent No.1, seeking the issuance of deemed conveyance in accordance with Section 11 of the MOFA Act. It was contended that, pursuant to the sanctioned plan, the petitioner-society possesses a built-up area aggregating to 9,140.83 square meters—computed as 8,923.86 square meters plus an additional 216.97 square meters—within a total built-up area of 17,676.95 square meters. Accordingly, the petitioner-society purportedly holds a 51.71% share in the larger plot, a quantum certified by a registered Architect. In light of this entitlement, the petitioner prayed for the issuance of a certificate of entitlement for unilateral conveyance of land admeasuring 4,199.93 square meters out of a larger plot of 8,122.01 square meters, situated in the land bearing CTS No.54/C, Village Kandivali, Dev Nagar, Mumbai. In addition, the petitioner sought an undivided share in the common recreation ground—specifically, 741.16 square meters out of an overall area of 1,433.29 square meters—as well as an FSI benefit for the setback area, quantified as 2,011.51 square meters out of 3,889.94 square meters, inclusive of the existing building. These precise calculations and measurements were tendered to substantiate the petitioner’s claim and to delineate the exact quantum of its entitlement under the redevelopment scheme.

3. In response, respondent Nos.2 and 3 vehemently opposed the application on multiple grounds. They averred that, by virtue of the agreement to sale entered into by the members of the petitioner-society, it was unequivocally stipulated that the conveyance of the disputed land was to be effected in favor of a federation comprising both the extant societies and those to be subsequently constituted. Furthermore, the respondents contended that the petitioner-society had agreed that the amalgamation of adjoining plots and the execution of the redevelopment project for the Dev Nagar Buildings—undertaken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 —were preconditions precedent to any conveyance. In addition, the respondents pointed out that the members of the petitioner-society were duly informed of rights conferred upon a Trust by virtue of a Gift Deed dated 29th December 2014, which allowed the utilization of an available FSI of 1,228.61 square meters for the purpose of converting the premises into a meditation area and/or constructing additional floors (specifically, the 29th and 30th floors above the A-wing and/or the 5th to 7th floors above the B-wing). It was further submitted that the petitioner had not taken any affirmative steps towards joining or forming the requisite federation of societies, notwithstanding the existence of five such societies. Consequently, the respondents stated that the grant of deemed conveyance cannot be unilaterally effected in favor of the petitioner-society alone. They also contended tha