IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Laxman Narayan Zagade and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.275 of 2024
Decided on : 26-03-2025
(A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Section 11 - Petition challenging the order granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land and construction to a society - Construction by developer in violation of development permission - Court held that non-issuance of an occupancy certificate does not bar deemed conveyance under Section 11, provided a self-declaration is submitted by the society. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11)
(B) Legal Principle - The Competent Authority can grant deemed conveyance even if the building is unauthorized, as the objective of the Act is to prevent promoters from benefiting from their own defaults. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the order granting unilateral deemed conveyance despite unauthorized construction by the developer, which violated development permissions. The society sought conveyance despite lacking an occupancy certificate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Competent Authority correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, affirming that the lack of an occupancy certificate does not impede the grant of deemed conveyance.
Issues: Whether the original landowners can deny conveyance solely due to unauthorized construction by the developer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the statutory obligation to convey land exists irrespective of the unauthorized nature of the building, emphasizing that the promoter's defaults cannot disadvantage the flat purchasers.
Result: Petition rejected.
Judgment :
1) Petition challenges order dated 24 November 2024 passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune City, Pune granting certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance of land admeasuring 4913.17 sq.mts. together with construction admeasuring 3239.06 sq.mtrs. out of total land of 6500 sq.mts in favour of Respondent No.2-society.
2) I have heard Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Dani, the learned senior advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 Society, Mr. Mulla, the learned AGP for Respondent -State, Mr. Tejas Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4.
3) The main contention raised by Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh is that the construction has been caused by Respondent No.3-developer in gross violation of development permission issued by the Planning Authority. It appears that the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune had sanctioned the layout of land admeasuring 6500 sq.mt, in which construction of 48 flats was approved. It however appears that Respondent No.3- developer constructed total 85 units in the building comprising of 70 residential flats and 15 shops. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that one of the terms and conditions of development agreement executed between Petitioner landowners and Respondent No.3-developer was that construction would be caused strictly in accordance with the development permission granted by the Planning Authority. It is contended that Petitioners have repeatedly complained in respect of the unauthorised construction caused by Respondent No.3-developer in violation of the development permission. It appears that Petitioners had petitioned this Court for seeking action in respect of the unauthorised construction and order dated 27 January 2016 was passed in Writ Petition No.5215 of 2013 directing the Pune Municipal Corporation to demolish the three floors above the authorised four floors without causing any damage to the authorised four floors. It appears that accordingly the flats constructed on 5th, 6th and 7th floors of the building have been punctured by the Municipal Corporation. The Competent Authority has recorded a finding that after puncturing of flats constructed on 5th, 6th and 7th construction has been rendered unsafe and a report to that effect has been issued by the structural auditor on 18 April 2022. Thus, there is no dispute to the position that unauthorised construction has been caused by Respondent No.3-developer on the land concerned, development rights in respect of which were granted by Petitioner-land owners.
4) The issue for consideration is whether the original landowners can deny conveyance of land to the collective body formed by the flat purchasers only on the ground that development carried out by developer was not in accordance with the development permission.
5) In ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, Writ Petition No.406 of 2018, decided on 25 November 2024 this Court had an occasion to deal with the issue as to whether the Competent Authority can exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) to grant certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of a building, which is yet to be issued occupation certificate. This Court referred to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018, which permits conveyance of land and building in favour of Society, whose building is yet to be issued occupation certificate upon submission of a self-declaration by the society accepting all responsibilities and liability regarding the building and to make an application to the Planning Authority for issuance of occupation certificate. The judgment in ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society has been followed by me in Yogesh
The court ruled that a society can obtain deemed conveyance even without an occupancy certificate, emphasizing that the promoter's defaults should not disadvantage flat purchasers.
The court affirmed that deemed conveyance can be granted without an occupancy certificate if a self-declaration is submitted, emphasizing the promoter's obligation to obtain such certificate.
The court affirmed that deemed conveyance can be granted under Section 11 of the Act even without an occupancy certificate, provided a self-declaration is submitted, preventing promoters from benefit....
The absence of an occupation certificate does not prevent a Co-operative Housing Society from obtaining deemed conveyance, as the promoter's failure cannot disadvantage flat purchasers.
The competent authority's jurisdiction to grant deemed conveyance is limited and cannot delve into aspects of title. An order granting deemed conveyance does not conclude the issue of right, title, a....
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.
Deemed conveyance must only cover completed areas of a property, reserving rights of the developer for ongoing and future construction under applicable law.
Under Section 11 MOFA, Competent Authority conducts summary prima facie enquiry via key documents to grant deemed conveyance on promoter's failure; cannot hold full title trial; pending society regis....
The Competent Authority must comply with statutory obligations and government guidelines when issuing deemed conveyance certificates, ensuring proper measurement and entitlement assessment.
The Competent Authority's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the MOFA Act is limited to enforcing the promoter's obligations, not adjudicating title disputes, which must be resolved in civil courts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.