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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6722

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J
BLUE HEAVEN CO OP HSG. SOC LTD. THR ITS SECRETARY – Appellant
Versus
PUNIT CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD. AND ORS – Respondent
WP/2455/2023



Advocates:
Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Suresh Sabrad, Mr. Pratik Sabrad, Mr. Amey Sawant, Neha Zanje for the Petitioner. Mr. Surel S. Shah, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Chinmay Acharya for the Respondent No.7 and 8. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Nishant Tripathi, Pranav Vaidya i/b M. Tripathi & Co., for the Respondent No. 1. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr. Omkar Kulkarni for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Chinmay Acharya for the Respondent No. 5 and 6. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for the Respondent No. 10 and 11 – CIDCO. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the Respondent-State.

The Competent Authority must fulfill statutory obligations under MOFA without engaging in title disputes, which should be resolved in civil proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction of Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Section 11 - Writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order of Competent Authority rejecting application for deemed conveyance - The Competent Authority failed to recognize the owners as promoters under MOFA, thus erroneously delving into title disputes instead of fulfilling statutory obligations. (Paras 34, 59, 76)

(B) Jurisdiction of Competent Authority - The authority's role is limited to verifying compliance with statutory obligations without delving into title disputes, which must be resolved in civil proceedings. (Paras 60, 66)

(C) Rights of flat purchasers - The flat purchasers have statutory rights under MOFA which cannot be jeopardized by interse disputes between owners and developers. (Paras 75, 76)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner society filed for deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA due to non-compliance by the owners, who contested the application based on alleged defects in agreements and title disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the owners are promoters under MOFA and must convey their rights to the society, quashing the Competent Authority's rejection of the application.

Issues: Whether the owners are promoters under MOFA and whether the Competent Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction in rejecting the application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Competent Authority must fulfill statutory obligations under MOFA without engaging in title disputes, which must be resolved through civil suits.

Result: Petition succeeds; the order of the Competent Authority is quashed and the application is remitted for issuance of certificate for leasehold rights.

JUDGEMENT

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exception is taken to the order dated 18th January 2023 passed by the Competent Authority dismissing the Petitioner’s Application No 561 of 2011 filed under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction of sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 [for short “MOFA” ].

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. As discerned from the pleadings, the case of the Petitioner is that by an Indenture styled as “Agreement to Lease”, the Respondent No 10- CIDCO granted license to Ambo Gadge and Shripat Patil to enter upon the subject land and to develop the same by constructing buildings within a period of four years. CIDCO also agreed to grant lease of the subject plot jointly to Ambo Gadge and Shripat Patil.

3. It is stated that vide an Agreement for Assignment cum Sale cum Development executed on 15th May, 2023, Ambo Gadge and Shripat Laxman Patil granted development rights to the Respondent No.1 for monetary consideration of Rs.56,00,000/- and on 23rd May, 2003, the Respondent No.1 was appointed as Constituted Attorney by Ambo Gadge and Shripat Laxman Patil. Subsequently commencement certificate was granted by Respondent No 10 on 3rd August, 2003 and between August 2003 to September, 2003, Respondent No 1 Patil-SR (ch) of commenced the construction and entered into registered agreements for sale with the individual flat purchasers in or around January, 2004.

4. It is stated that on 23 rd June, 2004, Ambo Gadge and Shripat Patil applied to Respondent No 10 for transfer of subject plot to the Respondent No 1. On 20th February 2006, occupancy certificate was issued pursuant to which the Respondent No.1 handed over possession of tenements in the developed project to the respective flat purchasers. On 2nd May, 2006, transfer charges were paid to Respondent No 10 for granting permission to transfer the subject plot in favour of Respondent No.1. A draft unexecuted Tripartite Agreement was lodged for adjudication under Section 31 of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 on 25 th May, 2006. On 9 th October, 2006, the Respondent No 10 granted transfer permission.

5. In the year 2010, some of the members of the Petitioner Society filed Consumer Complaint No.272 of 2012 seeking a direction to the Developers, Ambo Gadge and Shripat Patil for registration of the Co-

operative Housing Society as mandated by Section 10 of MOFA and for conveyance of land and building as mandated by Section 11 of MOFA.

Vide order dated 20th August 2016, the Consumer Forum directed the Respondent No.1 to register the Co-operative society within a period of 45 days and convey the plot within 30 days of the registration of Society and directed the owners to co-operate. As there was non Patil-SR (ch) of compliance of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, Execution Application No. 7 of 2018 was filed which is stated to be pending.

6. Due to non compliance of the Consumer Forum’s order, the members of the Society with the assistance of Respondent No.1 registered the cooperative housing society under section 10 of MOFA on 24th May, 2018.

7. Vide order dated 26 th November 2018, passed in Execution Application No.7 of 2018, the Consumer Forum directed the Respondent No.1 to convene a meeting of all the flat purchasers, enter into an agreement with them for reconstruction of building in view of the deteriorating condition of the building, pay transit rent and put the flat purchasers in reconstructed building.

8. By notice dated 30 th May 2012, the Petitioner-society called upon the Respondent No.1 and Shripat Patil and Ambo Gadge to convey the land and building. In the first Annual General Meeting of the Petitioner Society held on 11th June 2018, resolution was passed authorising the Managing Committee to file an application for conveyance.

9. Alleging non compliance of MOFA obligations, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 11(3) of MOFA seeking certificate for execution of unil

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