The Competent Authority's deemed conveyance under MOFA must adhere strictly to existing agreements, and disputes over property rights should be resolved in civil court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have preferred this writ petition impugning the order dated 15th October 2024 passed by the Competent Authority, i.e., respondent No.3. By the impugned order, respondent No.3 has purported to grant unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the MOFA Act”). The said order, it is alleged, bestows upon respondent No.1-Society the conveyance of land ad-measuring 4925.62 square metres together with undivided rights in the Recreational Ground (RG) area ad-measuring 869.23 square metres, in aggregate constituting 5794.85 square metres. The property at issue pertains to Survey No./Hissa No.330/6 corresponding to CTS Nos.1482/A/1/1 and 1482/A/1/2, and Survey No./Hissa No.330/3 corresponding to CTS No.1484 of Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, City Survey Office, Borivali in the Mumbai Suburban District. The petitioners assert that the order impugned is untenable in law and deserves interference by this Court.

2. The factual matrix, culminating in the institution of the present writ petition, may briefly be delineated hereunder.

Respondent No.1-Society, representing certain allottees/flat purchasers, initiated proceedings before respondent No.3 seeking to obtain deemed conveyance in respect of the subject property under Section 11 of the MOFA Act. The petitioners herein, being the original promoters/developers, are said to have executed various agreements with the members of respondent No.1-Society under Section 4 of the MOFA Act. However, disputes emerged between the parties concerning the precise extent of the land to be conveyed and the inclusion of the RG area in the conveyance. Consequently, respondent No.1-Society pursued unilateral conveyance of the entire land in question, including the RG area, prompting the petitioners to file objections which, they submit, have been disregarded by respondent No.3 in a perfunctory manner, culminating in the impugned order.

3. In order to substantiate their case, respondent No.1-Society filed Deemed Conveyance Application No.76 of 2024 before the Competent Authority (respondent No.3). The basis of their claim for the deemed conveyance rested upon the agreements entered into under Section 4 of the MOFA Act and other documents evidencing their right to the conveyance. It is further averred by respondent No.1 that, pursuant to the mandate of the statute, they had annexed all necessary documents, including, inter alia, copies of the agreement for sale executed between the promoter and one of the flat purchasers, the resolution passed in the Special General Body meeting dated 11th December 2023, and the Architect’s certificate and sanctioned building plan. These documents, according to respondent No.1, adequately demonstrate their entitlement to the deemed conveyance as claimed.

4. Upon receipt of notice under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, the petitioners entered appearance and contested the said application by urging, firstly, that the application was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the requirement of notarization. The petitioners further contended that they were at all times ready and willing to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of the portion of land bearing CTS No.1482/A/1/1, ad-measuring 2996 square metres. According to the petitioners, the draft conveyance was duly prepared and communica