Competent Authority under Section 11 MOFA must determine and grant deemed conveyance for correct subdivided area from official records, undeterred by pending civil suits on construction deviations and FSI disputes which do not affect land entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the Judgment and Order dated 13 April 2022 passed by respondent No.10. By the said order, the application preferred by the petitioner society under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 was rejected.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows. Respondent No.9 was the owner and lessor of two contiguous plots situated at Bandra, Danda Khar West, Mumbai 400052. The first plot originally bore CTS No.D 1084 admeasuring approximately 2983.25 square meters. The second plot originally bore CTS No.D1804 admeasuring approximately 3576.70 square meters.

3. By two separate lease deeds, both dated 7 February 1991, respondent No.9 demised the first property in favour of respondent No.6 and the second property in favour of respondent No.7. Thereafter, under two distinct Development Agreements dated 19 August 1997 and 17 September 1997 executed between respondent Nos.6 and 7 on one hand and respondent No.3 on the other, respondent No.3 was appointed as developer under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority Scheme. Respondent No.3 undertook to provide alternate accommodation to the occupants and members of respondent Nos.6 and 7 and was granted the right to utilize the balance FSI in accordance with the agreed terms. Necessary permissions and a Letter of Intent were granted by respondent No.8 upon applications submitted by respondent No.3.

4. Respondent No.3 thereafter entered into a partnership with respondent No.4 and constituted a partnership firm known as AHCL PEL, arrayed as respondent No.1. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 31 July 2001 was executed between respondent No. 1 and respondent No.2. Under the said arrangement, respondent No.2 was entrusted with the development of the property by utilizing 7918.54 square meters of FSI as per the Letter of Intent dated 19 February 1998, together with an additional ten percent balcony area and such other permissible areas, for construction of a building comprising stilt and twelve upper floors and any further additional area that might become available.

5. Subsequently, four Inter se Promoters Agreements dated 5 November 2001, 9 September 2002, 20 November 2003 and 7 December 2007 were executed between respondent Nos.1 and 2. These agreements recorded the detailed terms governing the development of the larger property and conferred development rights, including the right to construct residential buildings. In discharge of its obligations under the earlier Development Agreements dated 19 August 1997 and 17 September 1997, respondent No.1 completed construction of three buildings comprising ground plus seven floors for rehabilitation of the members and occupants of respondent Nos.6 and 7.

6. It was subsequently noticed that the actual areas of the first and second properties were larger than originally recorded. Respondent Nos.1 to 5, acting as promoters, procured rectification of the areas in the revenue records as well as in the records of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in order to avail the benefit of the additional area for development. The first property, the second property and