Competent Authority Under MOFA Cannot Exclude Portions Of Land Like Chawls Or Access Roads From Deemed Conveyance Certificates Based On Ownership Disputes, Rules High Court

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Competent Authority was justified in excluding the "Balance Portion" (chawl area) and the "Access Portion" from the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance based on disputed claims of title and possession

The court held

The Court clarified that this certificate does not finally determine title; Respondents 3 4 remain free to agitate their claims of ownership or unpaid consideration in a Civil Court

It also directed

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the partial exclusion. The Authority was directed to issue a modified certificate of deemed conveyance for the entire property, including the Balance and Access Portions, within eight weeks

01Facts

The Petitioner, a co-operative housing society, sought a unilateral deemed conveyance of its land admeasuring 2,409.8 square metres

p. 2

The property originally belonged to a deceased owner (predecessor of Respondents 3 4) who agreed to sell the entire land, including an existing chawl (“Jalal House”), to a Developer (Respondent 2) in 1970

p. 3

The Developer then agreed to construct a building and convey the entire property to the Petitioner Society

p. 3

Members have occupied the building since 1971

p. 3

On January 31, 2017, the Competent Authority granted a "partial" deemed conveyance, excluding the chawl area (Balance Portion) and granting only a "joint right of way" for the access roads (Access Portion)

p. 4

The exclusion was based on Respondents 3 4's claims that they still collected rent from chawl tenants and that the original sale consideration was unpaid

p. 16

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Competent Authority was justified in excluding the "Balance Portion" (chawl area) and the "Access Portion" from the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance based on disputed claims of title and possession

p. 15

ii.2. Whether the jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA extends to adjudicating complex title disputes or is limited to enforcing the promoter's contractual obligations

pp. 24-25

03Law Applied

Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), which mandates that a promoter must convey right, title, and interest in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4

p. 24

The Competent Authority's role is to perform a statutory duty to enforce a contractual obligation, not to adjudicate final title (Mazda Construction Company v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. and Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.)

pp. 26-27

Delivery of possession in tenanted premises can be "constructive" via attornment

pp. 10-11

Summary proceedings under Section 11 do not bar parties from seeking final adjudication in a Civil Court

p. 26, 29

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Agreement (1970) and the Articles of Agreement for Sale (AFS) clearly described the entire 2,409.8 square metre plot as the subject of conveyance, with no reservations for the owner

pp. 19-20

Clause 14 of the Agreement and Clause 12 of the AFS specifically contemplated the transfer of the chawl via the attornment of tenants to the Society

pp. 17-18, 23

The Court reasoned that the Competent Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into "disputed questions" such as the non-payment of consideration and the lack of physical attornment

p. 21, 28

Such issues are proprietary in nature and must be reserved for a Civil Court

p. 28

By restricting the Access Portion to a "joint right of way," the Authority erroneously assumed a division of ownership not found in the original MOFA agreements

p. 29

05Holding

The Court clarified that this certificate does not finally determine title; Respondents 3 4 remain free to agitate their claims of ownership or unpaid consideration in a Civil Court

p. 29, 32

p. 31

LawLens.Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF