### Unilateral Deemed Conveyance passed without notice to all co-owners violates principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner, along with Respondent Nos. 6 to 11, are co-owners of a property in Vile Parle, Mumbai.

The property was originally leased in 1974 to M/s C.S. Enterprises (Rahejas) for 98 years.

The property was subsequently developed by M/s A.K. Associates (Respondent No. 4), allegedly via a sub-lease, who constructed a building and sold flats to members of the Priya Co-operative Housing Society (Respondent No. 3).

Due to the failure of the Promoter to convey the title, the Society applied for Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).

In the application, the Society arrayed only six legal heirs of one deceased co-owner (Anthony Misquitta) and Respondent No. 4, omitting the Petitioner and other co-owners.

The Competent Authority (Respondent No. 2) granted the Deemed Conveyance on May 28, 2014, and a subsequent Deed of Assignment was registered.

The Petitioner challenged this order on grounds of violation of natural justice.

Whether the Competent Authority is required to provide an opportunity of being heard to the Owners of the land before granting a Certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under MOFA.

Whether the selective joinder of only a few co-owners and the failure to serve notice to all recorded owners vitiates the Deemed Conveyance proceedings.

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), which mandates that the Competent Authority must give the Promoter a "reasonable opportunity of being heard" and verify the authenticity of documents before issuing a certificate.

It relied on the definition of 'Promoter' under Section 2(c) of MOFA, which has been interpreted to include owners.

The court followed precedents like Tushar Jivram Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, which established that the Authority must hear all concerned parties including owners and builders.

And Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., which held that procedural fairness is an inherent value and its non-observance is itself a prejudice.

The court reasoned that while the Competent Authority exercises summary jurisdiction and does not decide complex questions of title, it is statutorily bound under Section 11(4) of MOFA to conduct a proper inquiry and adhere to the principles of audi alteram partem.

The court found that the Society was aware of the other co-owners but selectively joined only six heirs, one of whom was deceased for 14 years at the time of the application.

The Authority failed to verify the "authenticity of documents," specifically the missing sub-lease between the Rahejas and Respondent No. 4, which was essential to establish the Promoter's right to transfer.

The court rejected the 'prejudice' exception argued by the Society, noting that the exclusion of owners from the process deprived them of the right to point out facts regarding the property, such as reversionary rights or available FSI, thus rendering the order procedurally void.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Order dated May 28, 2014, and cancelled the Unilateral Deed of Conveyance dated July 5, 2014.

The matter was remitted back to the Competent Authority for a fresh decision after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, with a direction to decide the application within two months.