Competent Authority cannot exercise review jurisdiction to entertain a second deemed conveyance application while its prior rejection remains operative.

The Petitioner (Promoter) developed a layout in Mumbai containing four buildings/societies (Respondents 3-6).

Respondent No. 3 (Apeksha CHSL) filed a deemed conveyance application in 2016, which was rejected by the Competent Authority on August 4, 2016, due to a pending civil suit involving the same layout.

The Authority granted Apeksha CHSL liberty to refile only after the decision of said suit.

Without challenging this order and while the suit remained pending, Apeksha CHSL filed a second application in 2017.

The Competent Authority subsequently passed the impugned order on May 31, 2017, granting the deemed conveyance.

A unilateral conveyance deed was thereafter registered, which was challenged by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

1. Whether the second application for deemed conveyance was maintainable in light of the earlier rejection order and the doctrine of finality/res judicata?

2. Whether the Competent Authority has the power to review its own earlier orders under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963?

3. Whether the impugned order and subsequent registered conveyance deed are liable to be set aside for jurisdictional error?

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, which governs the grant of unilateral deemed conveyance but does not confer a power of review upon the Competent Authority.

The court relied on the principle of res judicata and the doctrine of finality of quasi-judicial decisions as established in Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar and Yadaiah v. State of Telangana, which hold that a quasi-judicial finding cannot be impeached in a second round unless reversed by a superior forum.

The court also noted that the Competent Authority is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and, once an order is passed, it becomes functus officio.

The court reasoned that the first order (August 4, 2016) reached finality because it was never challenged by Apeksha CHSL.

The liberty granted in that order was strictly conditional upon the "decision of the civil suit," a contingency that had not occurred.

By entertaining the second application, the Competent Authority effectively performed an impermissible review of its predecessor's decision.

The court heighted that MOFA is a beneficial legislation, but it does not allow a statutory authority to bypass the doctrine of res judicata or ignore its own binding determinations.

The Authority’s failure to address the Petitioner’s jurisdictional objections regarding the prior rejection vitiated the decision-making process.

Legal errors in a prior order must be corrected through appeal or writ, not by filing a fresh application before the same authority.

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order dated May 31, 2017, and cancelling the registered Deed of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance dated January 12, 2018.

The Court granted them liberty to challenge the original 2016 rejection order on its merits.