Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, Mr. Rohan Mahadik, Ms. Kekhala More, Ms. Nikita Butty
For the Respondents: Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar, Mr. Shivraj Patne, Mr. Rohan Soman, Ms. Shivali S. Mhatre

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:

1. The petitioner society, Kartik Regency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order that rejected their application for Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (!) .

2. The construction of the building was carried out on land identified by specific survey numbers (CTS Nos. 100, 101, and 103 to 107) and was supported by statutory certificates such as the Commencement Certificate and Occupation Certificate, which confirm the land's identity and the completion of construction on that land (!) (!) .

3. The Agreements under Section 4 of MOFA, executed between the promoter and individual flat purchasers, clearly describe the property, including the survey numbers and total area, and are supported by statutory certificates, establishing the identity and boundaries of the property for which conveyance is sought (!) (!) (!) .

4. The authority's role in proceedings under Section 11 is limited to a prima facie verification of compliance with statutory conditions, including checking the validity of Agreements, Certificates, and whether the promoter has failed to convey within the prescribed period. The authority is not expected to conduct a detailed trial or resolve complex title disputes (!) (!) (!) .

5. The documents presented, such as the Agreements, the statutory Certificates, and the Architect’s Certificate, collectively establish the identity and extent of the property, which is strictly confined to the area of approximately 1479.10 square meters as described in the Agreements and supported by official certificates (!) (!) .

6. The alleged minutes of a meeting dated 27 March 2021, which purportedly record flat purchasers' consent for construction on adjacent open land, do not conclusively demonstrate a waiver or surrender of the statutory right to conveyance. Their authenticity and legal effect are in dispute, and they do not override the clear contractual and statutory obligations (!) (!) (!) .

7. The statutory obligation for conveyance arises from the Agreements and is supported by statutory certificates. These obligations cannot be nullified by subsequent informal agreements or consents unless there is a legally valid modification, which is not established in the record (!) (!) .

8. The registration of the petitioner society, although challenged and under appeal, is considered prima facie valid. The pending appeal does not automatically render the society non-existent or prevent the exercise of statutory rights unless a final order of cancellation is issued (!) .

9. The municipal permissions for further construction, including on adjoining lands, do not affect the statutory entitlement to conveyance for the property described in the Agreements. Such permissions are separate and do not override the statutory remedy under Section 11 where the promoter has failed to convey (!) .

10. The Court found that the petitioner had established sufficient prima facie facts to invoke Section 11, including the identification of the property, the sale of flats, the promoter’s failure to convey, and the supporting statutory documentation. The authority's rejection of the application was deemed erroneous (!) .

11. The Court set aside the order rejecting the Deemed Conveyance and directed the competent authority to issue a fresh order in accordance with law, recognizing the petitioner society’s entitlement to conveyance of the specified property area (!) (!) (!) .

12. The Court rejected the respondent’s request for a stay of the judgment and ordered that the authority complete the necessary proceedings within six weeks, ensuring the conveyance process proceeds in accordance with the Court’s directions (!) .

13. The application for Deemed Conveyance is confined to the specific property described in the Agreements and statutory certificates, and there is no basis to include adjoining lands or to rely on documents suggesting waiver of rights unless conclusively established (!) (!) (!) .

Would you like a detailed legal opinion or further clarification on any specific aspect?