Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Developer's Obligation to Convey - The developer is statutorily required under the MOFA Act and Rules to execute a conveyance deed within four months of society registration. Failure to do so can lead to deemed conveyance or unilateral action by the society. However, if the building is constructed without sanctioned approval or if the developer claims the building is made without proper sanction, this complicates the obligation to convey. The developer's assertion that the building is made without sanction building plain suggests that purchase should not pressure the developer into executing the conveyance ["Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["S&M Enterprises vs Palazzo Building No. 1 CHSL - Bombay"], ["Krishna Constructions vs Subhash Uttam Dalv - Bombay"].
Developer's Right to Postpone Conveyance - The developer's claim that the building was constructed without proper sanction or that the building is made without sanction building plain indicates that the developer may have grounds to delay or refuse conveyance until compliance or approvals are obtained. The developer's contention that the building is constructed without sanction can serve as a legitimate reason to not execute the deed immediately, and purchase pressure should not override this legal position ["Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["S&M Enterprises vs Palazzo Building No. 1 CHSL - Bombay"].
Legal Framework and Deemed Conveyance - Under Section 11(3) of MOFA, if the developer neglects or refuses to execute conveyance within the prescribed period, the society or purchaser can invoke deemed conveyance. Nevertheless, if the building is not sanctioned or if there are legal challenges regarding the building's legality, this may impact the enforceability of such conveyance ["Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["Krishna Constructions vs Subhash Uttam Dalv - Bombay"].
Main Insight - The main point is that the developer's assertion that the building is made without sanction building plain provides a valid reason that purchase should not create undue pressure on the developer to execute the deed. The legal obligation to convey is subject to compliance with sanctioned plans and approvals, and building legality issues can justify delays or refusals to execute conveyance ["Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["S&M Enterprises vs Palazzo Building No. 1 CHSL - Bombay"].
Conclusion:While statutory provisions obligate developers to execute conveyance within a specified period, if the building is constructed without proper sanction or is made plain without legal approval, this provides the developer with a valid reason to delay or refuse execution. Therefore, purchase should not be used as a basis to pressure the developer into executing the deed where such legal or sanction issues exist.
Purchasing a flat in a new building is exciting, but what happens when the developer reveals it was constructed without a sanctioned building plan? A common question arises: While the developer expressed that the building is made without sanction building plan then the purchase should not create pressure to execute the deed of conveyance in his favour? This scenario raises critical issues under Indian property laws, particularly the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).
In this post, we break down the legal position, drawing from court judgments and statutory principles. Note: This is general information based on case law and should not be taken as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Generally, if a developer constructs a building without the necessary sanctioned building plan, purchasers cannot use their purchase to pressure or compel the execution of a conveyance deed. Unauthorized construction violates building regulations, rendering the structure illegal until regularized. Courts have consistently held that buyers lack enforceable rights to conveyance until the developer fulfills legal requirements, such as obtaining sanctions. Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 5 Supreme 76
Key quote from relevant judgments: Construction without sanctioned building plan is illegal and constitutes a violation of building regulations. Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 5 Supreme 76
Under municipal laws and MOFA, sanctioned plans are mandatory. Deviations or complete lack of sanctions make the building unlawful. In one case, municipal notices highlighted violations, and courts stressed that such buildings do not confer conveyance rights. Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 5 Supreme 76
Purchasers may face risks like demolition, making pressure tactics ineffective. Unauthorized constructions are subject to demolition and cannot be used to enforce conveyance rights. Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 5 Supreme 76
When developers openly state the building lacks sanctions—as in the query—agreements remain subject to regulatory compliance. Courts rule that buyers cannot compel deeds without legalization. The law recognizes that unauthorized construction cannot create enforceable pressure on the developer to transfer title. Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 5 Supreme 76
This aligns with MOFA's Section 11, which mandates promoters to convey title post-compliance, not before.
While direct pressure fails, MOFA offers 'deemed conveyance' remedies. However, even here, legality matters. In Laxman Narayan Zagade And Ors. vs Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 495, courts allowed deemed conveyance despite no occupancy certificate (OC) for unauthorized builds, provided societies submit self-declarations. The Competent Authority can grant deemed conveyance even if the building is unauthorized, as the objective of the Act is to prevent promoters from benefiting from their own defaults. Laxman Narayan Zagade And Ors. vs Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 495
Yet, this doesn't permit 'pressure' pre-regularization. Another ruling clarifies: Competent Authorities must verify documents under Rule 3(5) of MOFA Rules, ensuring promoter compliance. Garodia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. VS District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 539
In phased developments, proportionate conveyance is possible, but unauthorized status complicates it. Marathon Era Co-operative Housing Society Ltd VS Competent Authority & District Dy. Registrar , Cooperative Societies - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 607
MOFA cases reveal nuances:
These highlight that while buyers have protections, unauthorized builds shift leverage until regularization.
Courts have refused to support any pressure tactics on developers, emphasizing that the law does not support enforcement of conveyance where the building is unauthorised. DLF Universal Ltd. VS Director, T. & C. Planning Haryana - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1109
Summary:- Unauthorized buildings bar conveyance pressure. Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 5 Supreme 76- Regularization unlocks rights.- MOFA protects buyers via deemed conveyance, even in gray areas. Laxman Narayan Zagade And Ors. vs Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 495
In conclusion, while the law favors buyers against errant developers, it upholds building regulations. Unauthorized construction typically prevents enforced conveyance until fixed—protecting public safety over individual claims. Stay informed, verify documents, and seek professional advice.
This post references judgments like Faqir Chand Gulati VS Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 5 Supreme 76, DLF Universal Ltd. VS Director, T. & C. Planning Haryana - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1109, Laxman Narayan Zagade And Ors. vs Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 495, and others for educational purposes.
#RealEstateLaw, #ConveyanceDeed, #MOFA
Thereafter, on 11th March 2014, respondent No.3-Society filed an application bearing No.508 of 2014 under Section 11(3) of the MOFA Act, seeking unilateral deemed conveyance on the ground that despite repeated demands, the developer had failed to execute the conveyance deed. ... The developer cannot be permitted to indefinitely postpone conveyance on the ground that other societies were not yet formed. ... Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules imposes a positive ....
The commencement certificate is issued after a thorough scrutiny of the application made for sanction and approval of the 2nd building plan by the Promoter / Developer which was made as far back as on 19.11.2019 when the Respondent No. 1 Society was not even born. ... On 24.12.2021, Petitioner – Promoter / Developer filed reply to the Application showing readiness to execute the conveyance in favour of the Society ....
deed conveying the right, title and interest of the promoter in the land and building in favour of the applicant, as deemed conveyance. ... The Developer has thus made out a prima facie case of an error in the conveyance of entire land admeasuring 18,602.20 sq. mtrs in favour of the Federation. ... The Developer has challenged order of deemed conveyance dated 26 November 2019 as well as registered deed#HL....
Petitioner-Society claims that it was not made aware about execution of such Deed of Right of Way. It is Petitioner’s contention that Respondent No.13 did not have a right to execute the Deed of Right of Way in favour of M/s. Harasiddh Corporation. 8. ... That a Federation of all the six societies has already been formed and the Petitioner-Society did not have right to seek conveyance of part of the property in layout when the #HL_S....
Petitioner-Society claims that it was not made aware about execution of such Deed of Right of Way. It is Petitioner’s contention that Respondent No.13 did not have a right to execute the Deed of Right of Way in favour of M/s. Harasiddh Corporation. 8. ... The Society contended before the Competent Authority that execution of the Deed of Right of Way was without any authority and that Respondent No.13 did not have a....
District Forum, as available on records (Running Page-187 of Memo of Appeal), reveals that the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 1-Developer is ready and willing to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant. ... Advocate further submits that the Appellant/OP No. 2-Landowner cannot shake off her liability to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Complainan....
and execute all the relevant documents in favour of, in this case, the Petitioner. ... , after hearing the parties and submissions made by the Petitioner, by passing appropriate order without any specific reference to Deed of Conveyance dated 30th December 2014. ... It is not in dispute that under this Agreement, Respondent No. 2 is the Promoter who was to execute the conveyance in favour of the Petitioner under MO....
Trial Forum was justified in directing the appellants to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant/respondent on receipt of the balance consideration. Ld. ... Subsequently the petitioner due to her financial stringency expressed her desire not to take possession of the said additional space of 150 sq. ft. super built up area and issued a letter on 03-11-2010 in favour of the developer with the proposal of the petitioner....
The Developer shall after surrendering the Larger Property to the operation of the Apartment Act and at any appropriate stage thereafter execute in favour of the Purchaser a Deed of Apartment conveying the said Premises and the proportionate share and amenities in the common areas of the Residential ... This Court directed the promoter to execute a conveyance in favour of the society and restrained further construction on the suit plot. This Court held that the promot....
The agreement acknowledges respondent No.1 as a promoter and on payment of Rs.1,50,000/- it was agreed that respondent No.1 shall execute the sale deed of flat No.12 on the 3rd floor in favour of flat purchaser. 14. ... However, failed to execute conveyance in favour of the petitioner/society within the agreed/decided time. The petitioner/ society, therefore, on 31 May 2013 filed an application for a grant of unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA Act. ....
As observed by this Court in Yogesh Jayant Khadilkar (supra) the promoter or landowner cannot be permitted to take benefit of a situation where construction of the building is found to be illegal and the building is required to be demolished. Denial of the deemed conveyance of the land would result in a situation where errant developer or the original landowner would continue to claim right in respect of such land and redevelopment of the building would then be carried over by the promoter or landowner by keeping the society out. Thus denial of conveyance would result in loss of ri....
A perusal of the evidence on record clearly indicates that when the suit agreement was entered into between the developer and the appellants, the respondent no.1 society was not even formed. It is also an admitted position that till date, no conveyance deed has been executed between the developer in favour of the respondent no.1 society in respect of the plot and the building.
The appellant did not file the copy of his agreement with the owner of the building before the State Commission. No name of the alleged owner was disclosed in the written version filed by the appellant. The appellant even did not allege, before the State Commission that he will not be in a position to execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant and it would be necessary to implead the owner of the building in order to enable the complainant to obtain a valid conveyance deed in his favour. In the absence of such a plea, the appellant cannot be allowed to claim at th....
Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the owners as well as the developer as the OPs in the said complaint. The developer declined to execute the Conveyance Deed on the ground that Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in his favour had been revoked.
7. During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the complainants pointed out that a sum of Rs.6.5 lacs was payable by the opposite parties, out of which Rs.1.5 lacs was paid at the time of agreement. 6, During the pendency of the petition, the complainant- Vinayak Purushottam Dube died and his legal representatives have been brought on record, who are his wife and two sons. 3. O.P./Developer is hereby directed to obtain and to hand over Completion Certificate to the complainants. 4. O.P./Developer is hereby directed to execute Conveyance Deed in favour of complainants/Co-op. H....
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
