A notification under the MRTP Act cannot override the legal duty of conveyance under MOFA, which prevails in matters concerning flat buyers' rights.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. This petition raises a narrow, but important question of law: whether a notification issued under Section 20(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), granting a developer ten years’ time for completing a development project, can override the statutory obligation cast upon the developer under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) and Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules, 1964, to execute a conveyance of title in favor of a cooperative housing society within four months of its formation. This Court is thus called upon to examine the scheme and purpose of the two statutes and decide which must prevail in the event of an apparent conflict.

2. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioners, who are developers, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 27th November 2018 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune (Rural). By the said order, rendered in Application No. DC 16/2018-19, a certificate of deemed conveyance has also been issued in favor of respondent No.2 – the Housing Society. The certificate pertains to land admeasuring 442.25 square feet, together with the constructed area of 85,926.373 square meters, and includes an undivided share and interest in the common areas and common facilities to the extent of the said area. The land in question forms part of Survey Nos. 119 (Part) to 125 + 154 (Part) to 160/2 to 171 + 173, situate behind Cognizant, Rajiv Gandhi InfoTech Park, Hinjewadi, Pune.

3. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said order and certificate of deemed conveyance, have approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction.

4. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition, briefly stated, are as under: The petitioners are the original developers and owners of the property in question. They had undertaken the development of a township project known as Blue Ridge, after securing requisite permissions under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The construction was to be carried out in a phased manner as per the sanctioned plans. The dispute giving rise to the present proceedings is confined only to Towers 1 to 8 within the said township project. Respondent No.2-Society was registered on 12th September 2011. According to respondent No.2, the Society comprises eight buildings consisting of 811 flats, 12 shops, and common amenities, spread over the land forming part of the Blue Ridge Township. It is the grievance of respondent No.2 that despite repeated requests, the petitioners failed to convey the land and constructed premises to the Society, as required by law.

5. Faced with such inaction, respondent No.2 preferred an application for deemed conveyance before the District Deputy Registrar under the provisions of Section 11(3) of MOFA. The application was duly accompanied by necessary documents and records. On receipt of notice from the authority, the petitioners appeared and contested the application. By way of written submissions and oral arguments, the petitioners contended that the application was not maintainable in law. It was urged that no cause of action had arisen, inasmuch as the petitioners had not committed any breach of statutory duty. It was further submitted that the description of the subject matter of the application was incorrect, inasmuch as the entire master layout of the township could not be the subject matter of a deemed conveyance application restricted only to Towers 1 to 8. The petitioners also contended that the right of respondent No.2, if at all, could only extend to the land directly beneath the eight buildings in question, and not to the entire larger parcel of land forming the township.

6. Both parties submitted written arguments before the authority. After affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the society, the District De