SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
ACME Enterprises & Anr. – Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
ACME Enterprises & Anr. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (2) & ors. - Defendants
Interim Application No.4859 of 2025, Suit No.151 of 2025, Interim Application (L) No.16204 of 2024 In Suit No.143 of 2025 Suit No.143 of 2025
Decided On : 04-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Ms. Kausar Banatwala, Ms. Riya Thakkar and Mr. Yash Sheth i/b Mr. Tushar Goradia, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Vikramjeet Garewal, Mr. Vinayak Pandit and Mr. Sufyaan Mansuri i/b Mr. Ajinkya M. Udane
For the Defendant :Mr. G.O. Giri with Mr. Rohit Gaikwad i/b Ms. Komal R. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Vikramjeet Garewal, Mr. Vinayak Pandit and Mr. Sufyaan Mansuri i/b Mr. Ajinkya M. Udane, Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Ms. Kausar Banatwala, Ms. Riya Thakkar and Mr. Yash Sheth i/b Mr. Tushar Goradia

The court ruled that a developer's right to complete construction cannot be denied due to the execution of a deemed conveyance; proportional land conveyance is valid under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 4, 7, 7A, and 11 - Dispute regarding conveyance of land among developer and housing society federation - Developer challenged the deemed conveyance in favor of federation as illegal, claiming rights to complete construction on part of land - Court emphasized that a developer cannot withhold conveyance on the pretext of incomplete construction and recognized the right to proportionate land conveyance - Developer entitled to complete Building No. 1 using FSI within statutory disclosure limits. (Paras 1-90)

Facts of the case:
The developer contested the federation’s claim over 18,602.2 sq.mtrs of land based on a unilateral deemed conveyance after multiple constructions were undertaken, seeking to construct Building No. 1 utilizing unutilized FSI.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the federation is entitled to 15,402.20 sq.mtrs of land, while the remainder of 3,200 sq.mtrs is for the developer, thus enabling the developer to construct Building No. 1.

Issues: The primary questions were regarding the legality of deemed conveyance and the developer's right to construct amidst ongoing litigation over land entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory obligations under the MOFA do not permit a developer to claim land ownership on the grounds of incomplete construction when construction was disclosed and thus affirmed the developer’s rights under the law.

Result: Appeals partly allowed.

Judgement Key Points

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

  1. The court clarified that a developer's right to complete construction cannot be denied solely on the basis of the execution of a deemed conveyance or the registration of a conveyance deed in favor of a federation of societies. The developer retains the right to complete the construction of their building, provided that the disclosures made to flat purchasers are not violated and statutory obligations are adhered to (!) (!) .

  2. The statutory framework of MOFA emphasizes full and true disclosure by the promoter regarding land title, encumbrances, plans, specifications, and other relevant details before sale and construction. It also mandates timely conveyance of land and building rights to the flat purchasers or their representative bodies, such as societies or federations (!) (!) .

  3. Conveyance of land in favor of a federation or society is not contingent upon the complete development of the entire layout or all buildings. It is permissible to convey proportionate land based on the extent of construction already completed, and such conveyance can be executed during the ongoing development process (!) (!) .

  4. The right of a society or federation to seek conveyance of proportionate land is supported by statutory provisions and is not dependent on the completion of all layout development or construction of all buildings. Delay in development does not extinguish the statutory right to conveyance of the land corresponding to the completed portions (!) (!) .

  5. The developer's right to construct and utilize FSI is also limited by disclosures made to flat purchasers. The developer cannot utilize additional FSI arising from changes in law or norms if such use contradicts the disclosures made, and the land conveyed or to be conveyed cannot be used to benefit from increased FSI beyond what was disclosed (!) (!) .

  6. The court recognizes the principle of proportionate land conveyance, where land is divided based on the built-up area of the constructed buildings, even if the entire layout development is incomplete. This ensures that developers' rights to develop remain intact while respecting the statutory rights of flat purchasers (!) (!) (!) .

  7. The conveyance of the entire layout land before the completion of all development or layout completion is not supported. Instead, a phased or proportionate approach is appropriate, and the land entitlement of a federation or society should be limited to the area corresponding to the constructed portions, unless full development is complete and sanctioned plans are fully executed (!) (!) (!) .

  8. The developer's delay or inaction in completing construction does not automatically result in the transfer of ownership of the land to the federation or society. The statutory rights to conveyance are based on fulfillment of disclosures and statutory obligations, not on the developer’s delay alone (!) (!) .

  9. The use of additional FSI arising from policy or norm changes, such as those under DCPR-2034, can be utilized by the developer for construction within the limits of disclosures made, and such use does not automatically vest in the federation or society unless explicitly supported by statutory provisions or disclosures (!) (!) .

  10. Overall, the court emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory disclosures, the phased or proportionate conveyance of land based on completed construction, and the developer’s right to complete their development rights without being unduly restricted by the federation or society’s claims, especially when such claims are based on delays or alleged abandonment (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively reflect the court’s approach to balancing the statutory rights of flat purchasers and societies with the developer’s rights to complete construction, emphasizing proportionate land conveyance and adherence to disclosures over unilateral ownership claims.


Table of Content
1. dispute regarding land conveyance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. background facts of land measurements and approvals. (Para 6 , 7 , 10)
3. challenges to construction and conveyance. (Para 8 , 9 , 11)
4. developer's objections regarding conveyance process. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. developer's rights under mofa and building permit issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. legal principles surrounding mofa disclosures. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. court's analysis on land entitlement and construction rights. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
8. dispute over vested rights and land ownership implications. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
9. methodology of proportionate land allocation. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
10. final observations on developer's entitlements and injunction decisions. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. These are cross Suits filed by the Developer and by the Federation of housing societies involving dispute about conveyance of land in the common layout and Developer’s right to carry out further construction therein. Suit No.151 of 2025 is filed by the Developer- Acme Enterprises (Developer) inter alia challenging the Competent Authority’s order dated 26 November 2019 granting unilateral deemed conveyance conveying the entire land in the layout admeasuring 18,602.20 sq. mtrs. in favour of Neelam Nagar Building Nos.11A to 11J Co-operative Housing Societies’ Association Limited (Federation).The registered deed of unilateral deemed conveyance dated 26 June 2023 is also under challenge. The Developer-Acme has sought a declaration that it is entitled to complete development on the suit plot at least to the extent of Plot D-1 admeasuring 3,200 sq.mtrs.

2. On the other hand, the Federation has filed Suit No.143 of 2025 seeking permanent injunction against Developer-Acme from utilizing any FSI arising out of conveyed layout land admeasuring 18,602.20 sq.mtrs. including D-1 plot admeasuring 3,200 sq.mtrs. The Federation has also prayed for removal of construction already erected by the Developer-Acme. The Suit filed by Federation is essentially to prevent the Developer-Acme from constructing any additional building contrary to the disclosure made to the plot purchasers under Sections 7 and 7A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).

3. In their respective Suits, the Developer-Acme and Federation have filed the present Interim Applications seeking temporary injunction against each other. In Interim Application No.4859 of 2025, Developer-Acme has sought stay of Stop-Work Notice dated 6 June 2023 issued by Defendant No.20- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The Developer has also sought temporary injunction to restrain the Federation from obstructing development of the suit plot, particularly construction of Building No.1 in accordance with plans sanctioned by MCGM. The Developer has also sought stay of deed of deemed conveyance dated26 June 2023.

4. In Interim Application (L) No.16204 of 2024, the Federation has sought temporary injunction against the Developer from carrying out any further construction on the suit plot or from utilizing any form of FSI on any portion of conveyed land admeasuring 18,602.20 sq.mtrs. or any portion of Plot ‘D-1’ admeasuring 3,200 sq.mtrs. The Federation has also sought a temporary injunction against the Municipal Corporation from sanctioning any plans for carrying out any construction over the suit plot.

5. Thus, in the cross Suits filed by the Developer and the Federation, issues arise relating to entitlement of the Federation for conveyance of entire portion of land admeasuring 18,602.20 sq.mtrs. in respect of Plot ‘D’ and right of the Developer to carry out any further construction based on unutilized FSI in respect of the said conveyed land admeasuring 18,602.20 sq.mtrs. Thus, what needs to be decided in Developer’s Suit is whether









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top