Bombay High Court directs fresh Section 11 exercise; grants deemed conveyance for defined 1,479.10 sq m plot

A single‑judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar heard a writ petition challenging the Deputy Registrar (Competent Authority)'s order dated 26 August 2025 rejecting an application for Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). The petition was filed by a co‑operative housing society seeking conveyance of the land and building on specified City Survey (CTS) numbers in Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order to the extent it rejected the society's claim, and directed the Competent Authority to record the society’s entitlement to Deemed Conveyance for 1,479.10 square metres comprised in Tika No.2, City Survey Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107, and to issue necessary certificates enabling execution and registration of conveyance within six weeks. The Court explained that Section 11 was “meant to give flat purchasers a workable remedy” and emphasised a limited scope of enquiry at the initial stage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “At the initial stage, the Competent Authority is not expected to conduct a detailed trial as if it were deciding a civil suit for declaration of title. The enquiry is limited. The Authority must see whether the basic statutory conditions are satisfied on the face of the record. This involves checking whether valid Agreements under Section 4 of MOFA exist between the promoter and flat purchasers. It must identify the property described in those Agreements and verify that the flats have in fact been sold. The Authority must also look at documents such as the Architect’s Certificate which confirm the built area and the extent of development. Above all, it must ascertain whether the promoter has failed to execute conveyance within the time contemplated by law.” The Court added that “what the Authority cannot do is convert a summary proceeding into a full scale trial of disputed title,” while noting it may examine other relevant documents for a limited purpose.

Background The petitioner Kartik Regency Co‑op. Housing Society said the developer completed the building after obtaining a Commencement Certificate dated 13 September 2007 and an Occupation Certificate dated 21 March 2009, and had sold the majority of flats prior to occupation. Agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA described the property as Tika No.2, CTS Nos. 100, 101 and 103‑107, totalling 1,479.10 sq m. The Society relied on the Architect’s Certificate and statutory municipal certificates to seek Deemed Conveyance after the promoter failed to execute conveyance.

Respondent promoters (Nos. 3 and 4) opposed the petition, relying on alleged minutes of a meeting dated 27 March 2021 and asserted consents and no‑objection certificates for further construction that, they contended, involved adjoining plots (CTS Nos. 102 and 1198). They also pointed to an appeal challenging the Society’s registration pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act and argued that a registered society might be derecognised, rendering any deemed conveyance futile. The Competent Authority had rejected the Section 11 application, granting liberty to file afresh after final adjudication of the registration appeal.

The High Court analysed the statutory scheme and documents. It held the initial Section 11 enquiry was summary in nature and must be confined to whether statutory conditions were prima facie satisfied from records such as Section 4 Agreements, Architect’s Certificate, Commencement and Occupation Certificates, and whether the promoter failed to convey. Reading the documents together, the Court found the identity and area of the property certain and the claim confined to 1,479.10 sq m. The Court observed that disputed minutes and alleged consents did not, on the record, amount to a lawful surrender of the purchasers’ statutory right to conveyance. The registration challenge did not render the society non‑existent for present purposes; the Court noted the status quo order in appeal preserved the position and directed fresh exercise under Section 11. The petition was allowed; the Deputy Registrar’s rejection was set aside insofar as it denied Deemed Conveyance for the specified area. A request for stay of the judgment was rejected; no order as to costs was made.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.12078 OF 2025 Case Title: Kartik Regency Co‑op. Housing Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjiv Sawant with Mr. Rohan Mahadik, Ms. Kekhala More & Ms. Nikita Butty, i/by Juris Partners For the Respondent(s): Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar i/by Mr. Shivraj Patne and Mr. Rohan Soman for Respondent Nos.3 & 4; Ms. Shivali S. Mhatre for Respondent No.6.