Bombay High Court Holds Society Entitled to Entire Property in Deemed Conveyance; Says MOFA Authority Cannot Decide Title Disputes While Granting Conveyance
Bombay High Court Holds Deemed Conveyance Must Cover Entire Property; MOFA Authority Cannot Decide Disputed Title Issues
Facts
The petitioner, Girnar (Santacruz) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., challenged an order of the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), which granted only a partial unilateral deemed conveyance of the property.
The society sought deemed conveyance of the entire property, including CTS No. H-405, on which an existing chawl (“Jalal House”) stood, and CTS Nos. H-393 and H-386, which formed part of the access area. However, the Competent Authority excluded the chawl portion from the conveyance and granted only a joint right of way over the access lands, holding that ownership disputes existed regarding those portions. Aggrieved by the exclusion, the society approached the Bombay High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Competent Authority was justified in excluding the chawl property (CTS No. H-405) from the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance.
- Whether the Competent Authority could restrict the society’s rights over CTS Nos. H-393 and H-386 to a mere joint right of way.
- Whether proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA permit the Competent Authority to adjudicate disputed questions of ownership and title.
- Whether the governing contractual documents required conveyance of the entire scheduled property in favour of the housing society.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the 1970 Agreement, the Supplementary Agreement, and the Agreement for Sale (AFS) formed one continuous transaction and clearly demonstrated that the entire scheduled property, including the chawl and access lands, was intended to be conveyed to the housing society.
It argued that the Competent Authority wrongly relied upon disputes regarding payment of consideration, attornment of tenants, and collection of rent to exclude portions of the property. Such issues, according to the petitioner, involved disputed proprietary rights which could only be decided by a competent Civil Court and not in proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA.
The petitioner further submitted that after more than five decades without conveyance, denial of the entire property seriously prejudiced redevelopment of the society.
Respondents’ Arguments
The legal heirs of the original owner contended that they were not promoters within the meaning of MOFA and therefore no statutory obligation under Section 11 could be enforced against them.
They argued that the original sale transaction in favour of the developer was never completed because the balance consideration remained unpaid and the chawl tenants were never attorned. Consequently, they continued to collect rent, pay municipal taxes and exercise landlordship over the chawl.
According to them, the Competent Authority rightly refused deemed conveyance of the chawl and granted only a joint right of way over the access lands because ownership of those portions remained disputed.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court analysed Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, which obligates the promoter to convey its right, title and interest in the land and building to the co-operative housing society. Where the promoter fails to do so, the Competent Authority may issue a certificate for unilateral deemed conveyance.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 11 are intended to enforce the promoter’s contractual and statutory obligation to execute conveyance. They are not adjudicatory proceedings for determining disputed questions of ownership, title, landlordship or validity of competing proprietary claims.
The enquiry is therefore limited to identifying the extent of property which the promoter had agreed to convey under the governing contractual documents. Rival claims regarding ownership continue to remain open for adjudication before the competent Civil Court.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon several earlier decisions explaining the limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA, including:
- Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. (2025) 7 SCC 249—holding that the High Court may interfere where the Competent Authority fails to enforce the promoter’s statutory obligation under MOFA.
- Mazda Construction Co. v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd.—holding that the Competent Authority merely steps into the shoes of the defaulting promoter to facilitate conveyance and does not adjudicate title disputes.
- Dhuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
- New Sonal Industries Premises Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar
- Blue Heaven CHSL v. Punit Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
- Shree Siddharth Construction Builders & Developers v. Shree Saraswati Apartment CHS Ltd.
The Court observed that these authorities consistently recognise that deemed conveyance proceedings are summary in nature and do not finally determine proprietary rights.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Farhan P. Dubash held that all three governing documents—the Agreement, Supplementary Agreement, and Agreement for Sale—consistently described the entire scheduled property as the subject matter of conveyance.
The Court found that neither the chawl standing on CTS No. H-405 nor the access lands bearing CTS Nos. H-393 and H-386 had ever been excluded from the contractual arrangement. On the contrary, the agreements specifically contemplated attornment of chawl tenants and transfer of the landlord’s rights to the housing society upon conveyance.
The Court held that the Competent Authority wrongly entered into disputed issues regarding payment of consideration, attornment, collection of rent and competing ownership claims. Such questions require detailed adjudication by a Civil Court and fall outside the limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA.
Similarly, restricting the access lands to a mere right of way amounted to deciding disputed proprietary rights, which the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to determine.
The Court clarified that granting deemed conveyance over the entire property does not amount to a declaration of title. It merely facilitates conveyance of whatever right, title and interest the promoter had agreed to transfer, leaving all rival ownership claims open for determination in appropriate civil proceedings.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Competent Authority’s order to the extent it excluded the chawl property and restricted the access lands to a joint right of way.
The Court directed the Competent Authority to issue a modified certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance covering the entire scheduled property, including CTS No. H-405 and CTS Nos. H-393 and H-386, within eight weeks.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the modified deemed conveyance would not finally determine ownership or title, and all rival proprietary claims would remain open for adjudication before the competent Civil Court.
Case Details
Case: Girnar (Santacruz) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Mumbai City & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1435 of 2017
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farhan P. Dubash
Date: 30 July 2026
Result: Writ Petition Allowed. The Bombay High Court set aside the partial deemed conveyance order, directed issuance of a modified certificate covering the entire scheduled property, and clarified that questions of title and ownership remain open for adjudication before the competent Civil Court.
