HEADLINE: Competent Authority under MOFA cannot substantively review or determine a deemed conveyance order for non-compliance with conditions.

The original owner granted development rights to M/s Ajit Shah (Promoter) under a 1985 Development Agreement to build two structures: Building-A (for the Petitioner-society) and Building-B (for Respondents 2-8).

The agreement stipulated that the Society, upon receiving conveyance, must execute a perpetual lease for the smaller plot (Building-B) in favor of the Respondents at ₹1/year.

In 2015, the Competent Authority granted a Unilateral Deemed Conveyance (UDC) to the Petitioner, expressly conditional upon executing said lease.

The Petitioner accepted the conveyance but refused to execute the lease, alleging the Respondents intended to redevelop Building-B into a high-rise, blocking the Society's sea view.

Facing an eviction suit from the Petitioner, Respondents 2-8 applied to the Competent Authority, which passed the impugned order on April 18, 2025, directing the Petitioner to execute the lease or face revocation of its Deemed Conveyance.

Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, which mandates the promoter to convey right, title, and interest to the society.

ACME Enterprises v. Deputy Registrar, clarifying that the Competent Authority’s power is limited to enforcing the promoter's obligations and cannot decide complex title disputes.

Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji and Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Mills, establishing that "substantive review" is not an inherent power and must be expressly granted by statute, which is absent in MOFA.

Equitable principle of "Approbate and Reprobate" as defined in Rajasthan State Industrial Development v. Diamond Gem Development Corp. and Union of India v. N. Murugesan.

The court reasoned that the Competent Authority cannot "substantively review" its own order to cancel a conveyance once granted, as MOFA does not provide such power.

The court held that directing the execution of the lease was not a "review" but an "enforcement" of the original 2015 order and the 1985 Development Agreement.

Under the doctrine of "Approbate and Reprobate," the Society cannot enjoy the benefits of the Deemed Conveyance while rejecting the specific burden (the lease) attached to it.

The Society's fear of the Respondents building a high-rise was deemed a matter for a Civil Court, not a valid ground to withhold a contractually mandated lease deed.

The court concluded that while the Authority can enforce the lease, it exceeded its jurisdiction by adding a "default clause" that would terminate the Society’s title, as that effectively undoes a final statutory act.

The Court ordered that if the Petitioner fails to execute the lease within 30 days, the Competent Authority shall issue a Certificate for a "Unilateral Deemed Lease Deed" in favor of the Respondents, ensuring the obligation is met without destroying the Society's title.