Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The court emphasized that under Section 11 of MOFA, a promoter is legally obliged to convey the entire leased land as per the agreement, regardless of the FSI utilized or available (!) (!) (!) .

2. The agreement executed under Section 4 of MOFA clearly stipulates the conveyance of the entire land area, which in this case is approximately 8647.80 sq. mtrs, and the covenants of the agreement support this obligation (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The order of the competent authority granting conveyance only of a portion of the land (3832.30 sq. mtrs) was found to be erroneous because it did not align with the explicit terms of the agreement and the obligations of the promoter (!) .

4. The court clarified that the sanctioned plans and approved layouts are relevant for determining the extent of land to be conveyed, but they cannot override the contractual obligation to convey the entire land when the agreement explicitly provides for it (!) (!) .

5. The use of FSI and the land covered by internal roads and recreational grounds are integral to the conveyance process. The land designated for internal roads and recreational grounds, which are part of the overall layout, must be included in the conveyance, as they are part of the entire land parcel (!) (!) .

6. The court rejected the argument that the promoter's retention of unutilized FSI or land outside the constructed area justifies not conveying the entire land. When the agreement provides for conveyance of the entire land, unutilized FSI or other land components cannot be used as a basis to limit conveyance (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court held that the authority should not have considered the land area based solely on FSI utilization figures or internal plans when the agreement explicitly states the obligation to convey the entire land parcel (!) (!) .

8. The court directed the competent authority to issue a fresh certificate of deemed conveyance, covering the entire land area of approximately 8608 sq. mtrs, in accordance with the agreement, within a specified timeframe (!) .

9. The judgment underscores that when an agreement explicitly mandates conveyance of the entire land, the authority's role is to effectuate this obligation, and any deviation is considered a legal error warranting correction (!) .

10. The case highlights that the objective of the law is to ensure that the promoter fulfills their contractual obligation to convey the entire land to the society, and that the conveyance should reflect the terms of the agreement, not just technical FSI or layout considerations (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively reinforce that contractual obligations under the agreement take precedence, and authorities must adhere to these commitments when executing conveyance under the applicable law.