The statutory obligation to execute the conveyance deed under MOFA cannot be delayed by contractual stipulations or incomplete construction, ensuring timely ownership transfer to flat purchasers.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a developer, has challenged the legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 21st March 2017 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai. The said impugned order was passed in Application No. DC 1003197/2016 and is accompanied by a certificate of deemed conveyance issued on the same day in favour of respondent No.3 – the Co-operative Housing Society. The said certificate pertains to the land admeasuring 5219.90 square metres along with the undivided share and interest in the common areas and common facilities to the extent of 17288.80 square metres out of the total area admeasuring 29897.20 square metres forming part of the larger layout of land bearing CTS No.661/1/1.

2. The brief facts as pleaded by the petitioner are as follows:

The original owner of the property in question is M/s. Eternit Everest Limited. As per the partnership deed dated 31st July 1990, the development rights in respect of the said property were assigned to M/s. Lok Holdings. Subsequently, all rights, title, and interest, including benefits flowing from the said development agreement dated 31st July 1990, were further assigned and transferred in favour of the present petitioner-developer. Thereafter, on 22nd June 1993, a supplementary agreement was executed between the parties, thereby modifying and amending certain terms and conditions of the original agreement dated 31st July 1990. This transfer of development rights was the basis upon which the petitioner claims to have lawfully stepped into the shoes of the developer and undertaken the obligations and rights associated with the property.

3. The petitioner further submits that, in pursuance of the said development rights, he applied to the competent planning authority for development permission. Upon due consideration, the planning authority granted a commencement certificate dated 4th January 1995 for development of Plot No.5, which formed a part of a larger layout scheme. The said development was in relation to buildings identified as Wings B-3, C-3, C-4 and C-5. According to the petitioner, the entire scheme was to be developed in a phased manner, and all development activities undertaken were strictly as per sanctioned plans and in accordance with the permissions granted by the municipal authority from time to time.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that, on 27th April 1995, agreements for sale as contemplated under Section 4 of the MOFA Act were executed in favour of flat purchasers of buildings constructed as part of the Lok Everest Scheme on Plot No.4. According to the petitioner, he has developed and constructed a total of 15 buildings in the said layout, including one building meant for common amenities. Building No.4, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, consists of four wings, namely B-1, C-1, C-2, and B-2. In addition to these, the petitioner submits that construction of three out of four wings of Building No.5, namely B- 3, C-3, and C-4, is also complete. However, construction of Wing C-5 has not yet been undertaken or completed.

5. In view of this factual position, the petitioner contends that the development of the project is still ongoing, and therefore, issuance of deemed conveyance for the entire land, including undivided share in common areas and facilities, in favour of one single Society (respondent No.3), without considering the composite nature of the development and the incomplete construction, is legally unsustainable and would result in prejudice to the developer’s lawful rights.

6. It is an admitted position on record that on 25th February 2005, the Occupation Certificate in respect of Building No.4 was issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, on 4th September 2006, the flat purchasers of Building No.4 formed themselves into a Co-operative Housing Society. The said Society, namel