Developer cannot indefinitely stall conveyance to exploit future FSI potential after exhausting primary development rights.

The Petitioner, a developer, constructed 12 buildings (A to H, J, K, L, and M) on a 21,736 sq. mtr. plot

Respondent No. 1 (comprising buildings A–K) originally sued in 1985 for conveyance; the City Civil Court granted an order in 1997 for only the land appurtenant to those specific buildings

While a First Appeal was pending, Respondent No. 1 joined Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (buildings L and M) and withdrew the appeal in 2016 to seek a joint unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the MOFA

The Competent Authority granted the conveyance for the entire 21,736 sq. mtr. plot on 15 May 2017

The Petitioner challenged this, arguing they retained rights to build two more buildings (N and P) and that the Civil Court’s 1997 decree barred the Competent Authority’s order

1. Whether a prior Civil Court decree and the withdrawal of a First Appeal bar a Society from applying for deemed conveyance before the Competent Authority

2. Whether a developer can withhold conveyance for an indefinite period on the basis of potential future FSI or development rights

3. Whether the Competent Authority erred in conveying the entire plot area without deducting land surrendered for DP roads or reserved for public utilities

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), which mandates the promoter to convey title to the Society within the prescribed period

It relied on the principle that an appeal is a continuation of a suit and that statutory remedies for deemed conveyance can be pursued upon withdrawal of a suit/appeal

The court followed precedents established in Lakeview Developers v. Eternia CHS Ltd. and Rajkumar Gulati v. S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., which hold that a developer cannot exploit building potential for eternity or delay conveyance based on future FSI accruals

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument regarding res judicata, noting that the 1997 decree was passed when buildings L and M were incomplete and the MoFA was not yet amended to include "deemed conveyance"

The Court found that Respondent No. 1's withdrawal of the appeal to join other societies for a joint conveyance was a valid procedural shift

Regarding the Petitioner's claim to build buildings N and P, the Court noted that the MCGM had confirmed as early as 1991 that no balance FSI existed

The Court held that the "novel idea" of using TDR/FSI from reserved land (market/school) for these buildings was preposterous, as compensation for acquired land does not entitle the developer to delay the society's conveyance indefinitely

The Court acknowledged a factual error in the Competent Authority’s order for failing to exclude land already surrendered or reserved for public purposes

The Court partly allowed the petition. It set aside the Competent Authority’s order dated 15 May 2017 but remanded the matter for the limited purpose of issuing a fresh certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance for a reduced area of 16,584.55 sq. mtrs.