Statutory timeline for deemed conveyance under MOFA Rules prevails over conflicting contractual completion clauses.

The Petitioner-Society's building, 'Upvan Woodlands', was constructed on a portion of land admeasuring 2799.90 sq. mtrs., forming part of a larger layout of five plots totaling 4683.80 sq. mtrs.

While occupation certificates were granted in 2017, Respondent No. 1 (Developer) refused to execute a conveyance deed, citing Clause 12 of the MOFA Agreement.

This clause stipulated that conveyance would only be executed after the entire layout development was complete.

The District Deputy Registrar (Competent Authority) rejected the Society’s application for deemed conveyance on May 20, 2025, holding the application was premature and that the developer had not failed its statutory obligations because the contractual timeline had not elapsed.

1. Whether a contractual clause in an Agreement for Sale can override the statutory timeline for conveyance prescribed under Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules, 1964.

2. Whether a Co-operative Housing Society is entitled to a unilateral deemed conveyance of its proportionate share of land before the completion of the entire layout development.

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, regarding the promoter's duty to convey title.

It relied on Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules, 1964, which mandates conveyance within four months of the society's registration unless a specific period is agreed upon.

The court applied the precedent from Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, holding that the term "period" must be a fixed, determinable span of time and not a contingent event.

It further utilized Marathon Era Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The Competent Authority and Government Resolution (GR) dated June 22, 2018, which permit proportionate conveyance of land even if portions of a layout remain incomplete.

The Court reasoned that the Competent Authority misinterpreted the ratio in Marathon Era and ignored the mandate of Rule 9.

It clarified that statutory social welfare legislation like MOFA takes precedence over private contracts; therefore, a clause deferring conveyance until an uncertain future event (completion of a full layout) is void for being inconsistent with the "period" defined in Rule 9.

The Court observed that developers often delay conveyance to "milk" additional FSI generated by changing norms, which prejudices the flat purchasers' asset value and marketability.

Regarding the land area, the Court noted that while the building used "global FSI" from the larger plot, the Society restricted its claim to the 2799.90 sq. mtrs. specifically designated in the Agreement’s Second Schedule, an area the Respondent had previously agreed to in a draft deed.

The Court dismissed the Developer's apprehension regarding future construction, noting that once a specific portion is conveyed, the Society owns that portion and the Developer remains owner of the balance land to develop within disclosure limits.

It held that a Society is entitled to conveyance within the statutory period regardless of incomplete layout development.

The Court directed the Competent Authority to issue a Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance for 2799.90 sq. mtrs. in favor of the Petitioner-Society within six weeks.

The request for a stay on the order by Respondent No. 1 was rejected.