Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J.
Paramanand Builders LLP., - Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority & District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies - Respondent
Writ Petition No.1673 of 2022 With Interim Application No.3546 of 2023, Writ Petition No.17823 of 2024, Writ Petition No.2280 of 2024, Writ Petition No.2656 of 2022, Writ Petition No.2657 of 2022, Writ Petition No.4375 of 2022, Writ Petition No.7275 of 2025, Writ Petition No.9562 of 2023, Writ Petition No.9563 of 2023, Writ Petition No.9564 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history of leasehold allotments and deemed conveyance application (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. petitioners argue contracts limit society to leasehold rights (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. respondents assert promoter must convey full title under mofa (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. statutory scheme of mofa overrides private contracts (Para 28 , 29) |
| 5. mofa sections mandate promoter agreements and conveyance (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. broad promoter definition includes land owners causing construction (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. promoter duties for disclosure and society formation (Para 44 , 45) |
| 8. section 11 requires full transfer of promoter's title interest (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. form v ensures complete conveyance matching promoter's estate (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 10. precedents confirm society gets promoter's entire interest (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 63) |
| 11. lease clauses in agreements subordinate to section 11 (Para 64 , 65) |
| 12. prior cases fact-specific; not binding precedents (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 13. no executed lease; owner qualifies as promoter (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79) |
| 14. deemed conveyance order upheld; petitions dismissed (Para 80 , 81 , 82) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 17 March 2021 passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby a unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of the subject plot has been granted.
2. The material facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows. One Surendranath Jain and others, along with Rajkumari Seth and others, were the original owners of land bearing Survey No.222, Hissa Nos. 1 to 5, Survey No. 228, Hissa No. 3, and Survey No. 229, Hissa Nos. 3 and 5, situated at Dahisar. By an Agreement to Sell dated 15 April 1963, Surendranath Jain and others agreed to sell the larger property to the promoters of Respondent No. 5. Similarly, by a separate Agreement to Sell dated 20 June 1963, Rajkumar Seth and others agreed to transfer their interest in the said property to the same promoters. Respondent No. 5 came to be registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act on 20 June 1963. Disputes subsequently arose between the parties. Since the existence of such disputes is not in controversy, their details are not set out at this stage. The petitioner reserves liberty to refer to the same and place relevant documents on record, if necessary. Eventually, Respondent No. 5 instituted Special Civil Suit No. 1649 of 1979 before this court against Surendranath Jain and others and Rajkumar Seth and others. The parties resolved the disputes by filing consent terms. Upon such settlement, Respondent No. 5 became entitled to and vested with all right, title, and interest in the larger property admeasuring 41,279.95 sq. mtrs. The property records were accordingly mutated to reflect the name of Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 thereafter subdivided the larger property into approximately 31 smaller plots. By two separate letters of allotment, plot No. A/22 was allotted on monthly tenancy basis to Mr. Rajendra Patwa and Mr. Pandit Gauri Shankar, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. Share certificates were issued in their names. In 1980, the said allottees transferred their rights in favour of Mr. Virendra Maru and Mr. Bharat M. Vadgama.
3. Respondent No. 5 admitted Mr. Virendra Maru and Mr. Bharat M. Vadgama as members and issued a fresh Letter of Allotment in their favour. Under the said letter, the plot was allotted to them with an agreement to execute a lease either in their favour or in favour of their nominee, including a cooperative housing society of flat purchasers to be formed in respect of the building to be constructed on the plot and sold on ownership basis. The letter further stipulated that such cooperative housing society would make a joint applicat
AI
Under MOFA, promoter must convey entire right, title, and interest in land and building to flat purchasers' society; private leasehold agreements do not override if no lease executed and promoter hol....
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.
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 Competent Authority under MOFA cannot adjudicate title disputes; it must fulfill statutory obligations to issue deemed conveyance to the Society.
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the nature of power exercised by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, emphasizing the obligation of the promoter to convey rig....
The court affirmed that a unilateral deemed conveyance can be granted under MOFA despite ongoing litigation, as the statutory rights of flat purchasers are not extinguished by an auction sale.
The court established that the promoter's obligation under MOFA to convey property to the society is paramount, and the competent authority's role is limited to ensuring compliance with this obligati....
Deemed conveyance must only cover completed areas of a property, reserving rights of the developer for ongoing and future construction under applicable law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
