A separately registered society is entitled to proportionate deemed conveyance in a common layout.

Respondent No. 2, M/s. Modern Construction Co. Ltd., developed Plot Nos. 2 and 3 by constructing ten buildings.

The flat purchasers formed Respondent No. 3, E.M.C.C. Co-operative Housing Society, which obtained conveyance of Plot Nos. 2 and 3 on 31 March 1971.

Under a Package Deal Agreement dated 25 September 1970, Respondent No. 3 agreed to acquire rights in Plot No. 1, while granting Respondent No. 2 development rights to construct a building and sell flats thereon.

A common layout plan for Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was sanctioned on 14 December 1971.

The flat purchasers of the building on Plot No. 1 subsequently formed and registered the Petitioner-Society on 4 December 2008, without challenge by Respondent No. 3.

The Petitioner applied for deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (“MOFA”) on 3 July 2024.

The Competent Authority rejected the application on 6 March 2025, principally citing deficiencies in the documents, uncertainty regarding the land area, the alleged ownership of Respondent No. 3 over the layout, and possible FSI-related complications.

The Petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Petitioner-Society, despite the Package Deal Agreement and the alleged right of Respondent No. 3 to acquire Plot No. 1, was entitled to seek independent deemed conveyance of its building and a proportionate share in the layout land?

Whether the registration of the Petitioner-Society and Respondent No. 3’s subsequent conduct prevented Respondent No. 3 from collaterally disputing the Petitioner’s entitlement to conveyance proceedings?

Whether conveyance could be confined to Plot No. 1 measuring 1,219 sq. metres, or whether the Petitioner was entitled to a proportionate share in the entire common layout based on the common sanctioned plan and utilisation of FSI?

Whether the Competent Authority was justified in rejecting the application for deemed conveyance on the stated procedural, documentary, ownership and FSI-related grounds?

The Court applied Section 11 of the MOFA, under which a promoter is required to convey his right, title and interest in the land and building to the flat purchasers’ co-operative society, and the Competent Authority may issue a certificate of deemed conveyance where the promoter fails to do so.

The Court relied on the principle that once a separate co-operative housing society is validly formed and registered for a particular building, its right to seek conveyance of the building and the land necessary for its enjoyment cannot ordinarily be defeated by a collateral ownership objection; any challenge to the registration had to be pursued through the remedies under Sections 152 or 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

The Court also applied the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018, which permits proportionate division of layout land where buildings are developed under a common sanctioned plan and utilise the FSI of the larger layout.

The Court considered the principles discussed in Veer Tower Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Upvan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s. Upvan Developers, M/s. Blue Heavens Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s. Punit Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., and Deep Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, but held that the present case involved peculiar facts and therefore did not require an extended discussion of those authorities.

The Court held that Respondent No. 3’s Package Deal Agreement with the developer did not defeat the Petitioner’s right to seek conveyance.

Although the agreement contemplated that purchasers in the Plot No. 1 building would become members of Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 3 did not challenge the Petitioner-Society’s registration in 2008 and later invited it to participate in a joint redevelopment process, thereby acknowledging its separate and valid existence.

The Court reasoned that Respondent No. 3 could not accept the Petitioner as a separate society for management and redevelopment purposes while denying it the corresponding right to acquire the building and the land required for its sustenance.

Since all three plots were subjected to a common sanctioned layout plan, the individuality of Plot No. 1 was lost for FSI and development purposes.

The Petitioner’s building had a sanctioned BUA of 2,174.56 sq. metres, which could not have been achieved solely through Plot No. 1’s area of 1,219 sq. metres and therefore reflected utilisation of the common layout’s FSI.

Applying the architect’s proportionate calculation, the Court accepted the Petitioner’s entitlement to 1,970.45 sq. metres of main layout land, together with FSI advantages attributable to the 44-foot road and S.V. Road, measuring 123.59 sq. metres and 45.10 sq. metres respectively.

The Competent Authority had therefore erred in treating Respondent No. 3’s asserted ownership of the larger layout as an absolute bar to deemed conveyance.

It held that the Petitioner-Society was entitled to deemed conveyance of 1,970.45 sq. metres of layout land, along with FSI advantages of 123.59 sq. metres in respect of the 44-foot road and 45.10 sq. metres in respect of the S.V. Road.

The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for issuance of the deemed conveyance certificate, preferably within four months; the parties were directed to appear before that authority on 30 September 2026.

There was no order as to costs.