Despite 10-Year Delay, Bombay HC Sets Aside Housing Society’s Deemed-Conveyance Rejection, Remands Plea To Assess Its Proportionate Land Share Using Built-Up Area Figures

The Petitioner-Society, formed by purchasers of flats and shops in a building constructed by Respondent No. 29, sought unilateral deemed conveyance of the land and building under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (“MOFA”).

The Competent Authority rejected the Society’s first application in 2016, citing, among other matters, the slum notification, construction issues and competing title claims.

The Society did not challenge that order at the time, but filed a second application in 2024, which was allowed in 2025.

That later order was set aside on 17 March 2026 because the successive application was not maintainable; the Society then brought this petition challenging the 2016 rejection.

Section 11(1) of MOFA imposes a statutory obligation on the promoter to convey the promoter’s right, title and interest in the land and building to the flat purchasers’ organisation; Sections 11(3) and 11(5) provide a summary route for deemed conveyance through the Competent Authority when that obligation is not fulfilled.

Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules identifies when the conveyance obligation arises, but does not prescribe a deadline for applying for deemed conveyance; MOFA obligations may give rise to a continuing cause of action, as recognised in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., Sushama Tulsidas Adhav v. Pradeep D. Shah and Satellite Garden I Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Although writ jurisdiction is discretionary and delay may ordinarily justify refusal of relief, the Court held that delay did not extinguish this Society’s statutory right in the circumstances.

The Court also relied on Aakanksha Constructions Co., B.K. Corporation, Kashish Park Realty Pvt. Ltd., Ganesh Krupa CHSL and Shree Rasraj Heights CHSL in support of permitting a society to challenge an earlier order after an intervening order concerning a subsequent application or corrigendum has been set aside.

The Court acknowledged that the Society had not promptly challenged the 2016 order, but considered its explanation concerning internal management disputes and the later change in committee, as well as the pandemic period and the continuing statutory nature of the conveyance obligation.

It concluded that the delay did not justify denying the Society an opportunity to pursue its claim.

It construed the 17 March 2026 liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings under Section 11 as broad enough to include this challenge, noting that the present case did not involve a finding that the Competent Authority was incapable of deciding the matter.

On the merits, the municipal file note recorded 1,989.31 sq. m. of BUA for the Society’s building, 653.74 sq. m. for the other structures and 320.31 sq. m. of balance BUA, against permissible BUA of 2,314.74 sq. m.

The Court held that the Society could not claim the entire plot on that material; its claim should instead be assessed on a proportionate basis, with the Competent Authority undertaking the division on remand.

The 28 March 2016 rejection order was set aside, and Application No. 60 of 2015 was remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication and proportionate land division, taking account of the BUA figures discussed in the judgment.

The Society must provide an architect’s certificate stating its exact land entitlement on that basis.

The parties were directed to appear before the Competent Authority on 19 November 2026, and the remanded proceedings were to be decided expeditiously, preferably within four months.

No order as to costs was made.

The Court declined a request to stay the judgment.