Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court quashed the order granting deemed conveyance in favour of the cooperative housing society, holding that the District Deputy Registrar (DDR) had acted beyond jurisdiction. The Court observed that the Registrar cannot, through deemed conveyance proceedings under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), adjudicate disputed questions of title or extinguish third-party rights. The impugned order was found to be contrary to settled principles of law and was therefore set aside.
Facts
The dispute arose when a cooperative housing society sought deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA, claiming that the promoter had failed to execute the conveyance deed. The land in question, however, had been subjected to earlier development agreements and multiple third-party claims. Despite objections by affected parties disputing ownership and title, the DDR proceeded to allow the deemed conveyance application.
The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court, contending that the DDR had no authority to extinguish rights of third parties or adjudicate complex disputes of ownership under summary proceedings of deemed conveyance.
Issues
- Whether the District Deputy Registrar could, in deemed conveyance proceedings, decide complex disputes relating to ownership and title of the property.
- Whether the impugned order granting deemed conveyance was valid despite objections from third parties.
- Whether the Registrar exceeded jurisdiction by effectively extinguishing third-party rights without proper adjudication.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the DDR had travelled beyond the scope of MOFA by adjudicating disputed title and granting conveyance despite rival claims. It was urged that the purpose of Section 11 was to protect flat purchasers by ensuring conveyance from promoters, but the same could not override rights of third parties claiming ownership.
It was further argued that the DDR’s powers were limited to ministerial acts and did not extend to resolving disputes involving complex questions of title, which could only be determined by a civil court. Thus, the impugned order was bad in law and deserved to be set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
The society contended that flat purchasers had an indefeasible right to conveyance under MOFA, and the promoter’s failure justified the grant of deemed conveyance. It was submitted that the DDR rightly exercised statutory power to protect the society’s interest. The society further argued that third parties could not frustrate the legislative intent of MOFA, which was enacted to prevent exploitation of flat purchasers by promoters.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of Section 11 of MOFA, noting that while it creates a statutory right for flat purchasers to seek conveyance, the jurisdiction of the DDR is limited. The Registrar cannot adjudicate title disputes or extinguish competing claims. The law contemplates only ministerial verification to facilitate conveyance from promoter to society.
The Court highlighted that when disputes regarding ownership arise, the parties must approach a competent civil court for adjudication. The DDR, functioning in a summary capacity, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of a civil court.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on several judgments:
- M/s. Mazda Construction Company v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. — Held that the Registrar cannot decide ownership disputes while granting deemed conveyance.
- Satguru Infocorp Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra — Reiterated that powers under MOFA are ministerial and not adjudicatory.
- Jayantilal Investments v. Madhuvihar Cooperative Housing Society — Clarified that the statutory right to conveyance cannot override existing ownership rights of third parties.
These precedents firmly established that the DDR cannot confer rights or extinguish ownership in deemed conveyance proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court reasoned that the DDR had acted beyond his statutory authority by granting conveyance despite unresolved title disputes. The Court observed: “The Registrar cannot, under the guise of granting deemed conveyance, extinguish or override third-party ownership claims. Such disputes must be resolved by a civil court.”
It further held that flat purchasers’ rights, though protected under MOFA, must be balanced against established property law principles. The impugned order was thus vitiated by jurisdictional error and legal infirmity.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the impugned order granting deemed conveyance in favour of the society. It held that while societies have a statutory right to seek conveyance, the same cannot be exercised at the cost of extinguishing legitimate ownership claims of third parties. The Court clarified that the DDR’s jurisdiction is limited to ministerial functions and cannot extend to adjudicating complex title disputes.
Implications
This ruling reaffirms that deemed conveyance proceedings under MOFA are limited in scope and cannot be misused to override legitimate ownership claims. It protects third-party rights while ensuring that societies cannot exploit MOFA provisions beyond their intended purpose. The judgment draws a crucial boundary between administrative functions of the Registrar and adjudicatory powers of civil courts, ensuring legal certainty in property disputes.
Cited Cases in Brief
- Mazda Construction Company — Registrar cannot decide ownership in deemed conveyance.
- Satguru Infocorp Pvt. Ltd. — DDR’s powers are ministerial, not adjudicatory.
- Jayantilal Investments — MOFA rights cannot override existing third-party rights.
FAQs
Q1: Can the District Deputy Registrar decide ownership disputes in deemed conveyance proceedings?
No. The High Court clarified that the DDR’s jurisdiction is only ministerial. Ownership disputes must be adjudicated by civil courts.
Q2: Does MOFA give flat purchasers an absolute right to conveyance?
Yes, but this right is subject to existing ownership claims. MOFA ensures protection against promoters but cannot extinguish third-party ownership rights.
Q3: What is the remedy for societies if ownership of the land is disputed?
The society must approach a civil court for adjudication of ownership disputes before conveyance can be enforced.
