Conveyance Under MOFA Cannot Be Granted In Contravention of Supreme Court Directions For Integrated Layout Development

The Plaintiff, a Cooperative Housing Society with 21 members, occupies a building on a portion (938 sq. mtrs.) of a larger land parcel (6067 sq. mtrs.) owned/developed by Defendant No. 1

The Plaintiff’s building was constructed in 1983-84 under MOFA agreements

In 2022, the Supreme Court, in contempt proceedings, directed Defendant No. 1 to redevelop the entire larger land as a single indivisible plot within 36 months and execute conveyance only after completion

The Plaintiff sought exclusion from this scheme before the Supreme Court, but its application was rejected on 19.09.2022

The Plaintiff filed the present suit and interim application seeking an injunction to restrain the Defendants from utilizing FSI/TDR related to the Plaintiff’s claimed 938 sq. mtrs. and to prevent development affecting their interest, alleging "usurpation" of FSI and encroachment

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction to restrain the Developer from utilizing FSI/TDR linked to the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

2. Whether the Plaintiff can seek a separate conveyance and demarcation of its portion of the land in light of the Supreme Court's directions for unified development.

Article 141 of the Constitution of India, stating that even a decision by the Supreme Court unaccompanied by reasons binds the parties inter se and draws a curtain on litigation, as established in Union of India v. Mohanan Nair

Regulation 33(9) of the DCPR 2034, which allows for FSI based on a "Rehabilitation + Incentive" model rather than purely on plot area

Section 11 of MOFA regarding the timing of conveyance and the principle from Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. vs. Union Bank of India regarding premature causes of action

The court found that the Supreme Court's twin orders (19.04.2022 and 19.09.2022) explicitly mandated that the larger land be treated as a single indivisible plot and that conveyance be executed only after the entire redevelopment is complete

Since the Plaintiff's specific plea for demarcation was already rejected by the Supreme Court, the present claim was effectively an attempt to relitigate a settled issue

Regarding FSI, the court noted that Defendant No. 1 is using the "Rehabilitation + Incentive" model under DCPR 33(9); because the Plaintiff's members refused to participate in the redevelopment, no incentive FSI was being generated from their specific area for the developer's sale component

The inclusion of the Plaintiff's existing built-up area in the layout was a statutory necessity for calculating overall FSI and did not constitute "usurpation"

Consequently, the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience

Granting the injunction would directly contravene the binding directions of the Supreme Court. The Interim Application was dismissed, and the suit was listed for further directions on 10th July 2026