Deemed conveyance under MOFA must adhere to statutory obligations, and timelines cannot be circumvented by private agreements; competent authority must assess the proportional area for conveyance accurately.

JUDGMENT :

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

2. This Writ Petition challenges an Order dated 16^th October 2025 passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. the District Deputy Registrar– Co-operative Society, Mumbai City (4), Competent Authority under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short “MOFA”), whereby Respondent No.2 has granted a Unilateral Deemed Conveyance in favour of Respondent No.3 Society.

3. Before considering the impugned Order dated 16^th October 2025, and the submissions of the parties in respect thereof, it would be appropriate to set out the facts in the matter.

4. The Petitioner is the Promoter, Owner and Developer of a property admeasuring 27,116.30 square meters which, subsequently, in view of multiple amalgamations and subdivisions, has been divided into sub-plots marked as Plot A, B, C, D, E, F and G in terms of approved layouts from time to time.

5. These plots were designated for the construction of multi-storied buildings as per the sanctioned layout plan. A portion of the said larger land, admeasuring approx.6,536.30 square meters, and bearing CTS Nos.692/A/2/2/A/1, which forms part of a single layout, is identified as the aforementioned Sub-Plot ‘A’.

6. Sub-Plot ‘A’ comprises of multiple buildings, out of which Respondent No.3 consists only of Wings A, B, C and F of Building A-2, constructed on the said land.

7. The Petitioner had executed Sale Agreements with the members of Respondent No.3, 4 and 5 which agreements contain clear, binding and specific clauses pertaining to the execution of the conveyance. The Petitioner had referred to one such Agreement for Sale dated 31^st July 1999, executed between the Petitioner and one of the members of Respondent No.3, which was produced by Respondent No.3 before Respondent No.2. The Petitioner has referred to Clauses 26 and 27 of the said Agreement and stated that a perusal of the aforesaid clauses demonstrates that the Developer, i.e. the Petitioner, had expressly reserved its right to determine the extent, mode and timing of the conveyance or lease, including the option to execute a long-term lease in lieu of an outright conveyance. Furthermore, the Petitioner stated that it has also been recorded that the Petitioner shall be entitled at its option to form a single Organization of all the Premises to be constructed on the said land i.e. of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and to execute a conveyance / lease in respect of the said land in favour of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.

8. It is the case of the Petitioner that despite the aforesaid clear and unambiguous terms and conditions, Respondent No.3 prematurely raised a demand for conveyance without waiting for the completion of the entire development of the said land. The Petitioner states that, in view of the said demand, the Petitioner, in good faith, demonstrated its willingness to convey the conveyable portion of the said land of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by preparing and sharing a joint conveyance deed. By an email dated 6^th February 2025, addressed by the Petitioner to Respondent No.3, the Petitioner forwarded the said draft conveyance to Respondent No.3.

9. Thereafter, the Petitioner issued a reminder to Respondent No.3 by its email dated 6^th May 2025 requesting for a response to the Draft Conveyance. However, instead of