Disputes over excess area or title in deemed conveyance orders under MOFA Section 11(3) are for civil courts, not writ jurisdiction; promoters cannot retain land via private clauses against statutory conveyance mandate.

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenges an Order and Certificate dated 25^th July 2025 (impugned order) issued by Respondent No. 1/District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) granting deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 (Federation of Societies) and Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 Societies of an area that is stated to be beyond their entitlement and in violation of the terms and conditions of the Development Agreements executed between the Petitioner, as the owner of the land and Respondent No. 2 as the developer thereof and also the MOFA Agreements executed between Respondent No. 2 as the Promoter and the individual flat purchasers.

2. The matter has been circulated by the Petitioner who seeks urgent ad-interim reliefs by relying on a notice dated 10^th April 2026 issued by Respondent No. 24/Sub-Registrar of Assurances which calls upon the Petitioner to remain present at a hearing scheduled on 27^th April 2026 in the office of Respondent No. 24 with their objections, if any, to the registration of the document of deemed conveyance, that was granted by Respondent No. 1 together with an order of injunction of a competent Court order, failing which, it would be presumed that there was no objection and Respondent No. 24 would proceed with the registration of the said document of deemed conveyance under Section 11(5) of MOFA.

3. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned Counsel who appears for the Petitioner, invites my attention to the said notice dated 10^th April 2026 and submits that the same is contrary to law inasmuch as, the same is arbitrary, coercive and contrary to well-settled principles of law. He submits that the said notice has also failed to annex a copy of the draft of the deemed conveyance on which, the Petitioner has been asked to submit their comments. He further contends that the said notice has been issued in the teeth of judicial pronouncements laid down by this Court in Jagshi Jethabhai Chheda & Anr. vs. District Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai & Ors 1, Order dated 3^rd December 2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 12627 of 2024 dated 3^rd December 2024 in Writ Petition No. 12627 of 2024 where it has been held that the authority cannot compel a party to obtain an injunction order as a pre- condition but is instead required to act strictly in accordance with law. He submits that the proposed registration that is sought to be done by Respondent No. 24 is a direct consequence of the impugned order which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition and therefore, the ad-interim reliefs are required to be granted in favour of the Petitioner.

4. Mr. Khandeparkar then contends that the application filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 Societies before Respondent No. 1 namely, Application No. 39 of 2025, seeking unilateral deemed conveyance is contrary to the provisions of MOFA inasmuch as, the Architect's Report which was a mandatory pre-requisite, as per the Government Resolution dated 22^nd June 2018 (GR) was not submitted but instead, a Survey Report, contrary to the requirements of MOFA and the sanctioned plans of the construction carried out thereupon