MOFA Deemed-Conveyance Orders Must Address Material Objections and Give Reasons, Despite Summary Proceedings.

Respondent No. 2 Society applied under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (“MOFA”) for deemed conveyance of the subject plot.

The Competent Authority initially dismissed the application; on remand, it granted deemed conveyance by order dated 20 March 2025.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that it failed to address material objections concerning the agreements for sale, the Society’s alleged acknowledgment of the petitioner’s development rights and balance FSI, the proposed second building, and the Society Secretary’s authority to apply.

The earlier remand order had expressly directed the Competent Authority to consider the parties’ submissions and record reasoned findings.

1. Whether the Competent Authority’s order granting deemed conveyance adequately addressed the petitioner’s material objections and gave reasons for rejecting them.

2. Whether the High Court could sustain the order on an alternative ground despite the Competent Authority’s failure to make findings on those objections.

Under MOFA, including Sections 5A, 10 and 11, the Competent Authority has a limited, summary role in determining entitlement to conveyance by reference to the flat-purchaser agreements; the summary nature of the proceedings does not excuse consideration of issues germane to that determination or the giving of reasons.

A quasi-judicial authority need not answer every argument or provide a court-like judgment, but its reasons must disclose consideration of the material points in controversy.

The Court also relied on *Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises CHS* for the need for a reasoned order under Section 11 of MOFA, and referred to *Mazda Construction*, *Marathon Next Gen Realty* and *Tushar Jivram Chauhan* regarding consideration of agreements and relevant documents.

Reasons must connect the material considered to the conclusions reached and enable meaningful judicial review.

The Competent Authority referred to clause 22 and the first schedule to the agreements, but did not consider other contractual clauses relied on to show that the development contemplated more than one building or explain why those clauses did not affect the extent of conveyance.

It likewise failed to assess the alleged admission in the Society’s earlier plaint, the 1976 plan and the claimed continuing right to construct a second building, and did not determine the objection to the Secretary’s authority.

General statements that FSI and property disputes belonged to the Civil Court did not address whether the cited material affected the Society’s entitlement under the agreements.

These omissions also failed to comply with the prior remand direction.

Because deciding the application required the Competent Authority to assess the competing submissions in the first instance, the High Court declined to supply an alternative basis for the order.

It set aside the order dated 20 March 2025 and remitted Application No. 50 of 2021 for fresh consideration, directing the Authority to hear the parties, consider their material submissions and relevant documents, and issue a reasoned order by 31 March 2027.

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the petitioner’s objections or the Society’s ultimate entitlement to deemed conveyance; all merits contentions remained open.