High Court Holds Deemed Conveyance Order Cannot Decide Title; Petitioner Relegated to Civil Suit

A Single Judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar heard a petition challenging a Deemed Conveyance Order, its corrigendum, a registered unilateral deemed conveyance deed, a supplementary agreement and subsequent mutation arising from redevelopment of land at Dahisar. The petitioner, one of the legal heirs of the original owner, assailed the actions as procured by fraud, misrepresentation and by breach of principles of natural justice and contended that the Competent Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA were summary and limited in nature and that the Competent Authority did not function as a civil court empowered to adjudicate complex title disputes. The Court observed that where disputes related to extent of land, inclusion of ancestral structures or transfer of development rights arose, the appropriate remedy lay in a substantive civil suit; the authority “does not enlarge the promoter’s title” and its findings did not bind a civil court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The Court held that a deemed conveyance results only in transfer of such right, title and interest as the promoter actually possesses. It does not enlarge the promoter’s title. If the promoter or landowner is of the view that the conveyance order includes a larger extent of land or rights than what could legally be conveyed, the remedy lies in filing a substantive civil suit. The civil court has full jurisdiction to examine title deeds, ascertain the true extent of property, record oral and documentary evidence, and render findings on ownership. Importantly, the findings of the Competent Authority do not bind the civil court. The civil rights of the parties remain unaffected and open for adjudication.” The Court further reiterated that “natural justice is not an inflexible ritual. It is a means to ensure fairness, not an end in itself,” and concluded that “the plea of breach of natural justice cannot be accepted. No real prejudice has been demonstrated.”

Background The dispute arose from redevelopment of land originally owned by Late Laxman Pandurang Thakur (d.1995), corresponding to C.T.S. No. 1732 at Dahisar, of which the petitioner claimed an undivided share as an heir. Respondent No.1 society filed Application No.101 of 2021 under Section 11 seeking unilateral deemed conveyance. The authority issued hearing notices addressed to the deceased owner and did not formally substitute legal heirs despite receiving intimation of death; a revised Form VII and subsequent applications followed. On 11.05.2022 the District Deputy Registrar passed the Deemed Conveyance Order and certificate; the unilateral deemed conveyance deed was registered on 19.07.2022, a corrigendum and a supplementary agreement were later recorded, and mutation was effected on 30.11.2023.

The petitioner alleged multiple irregularities: the application named a deceased owner, notices were said to be shown served on the deceased, party arrays were altered without formal amendment orders, a forged No Objection Certificate bore the petitioner’s alleged signature, and ancestral structures including a chawl and a family temple were omitted from exclusion and conveyed to the society. She argued that the Competent Authority had granted conveyance of land differing in description and extent from MOFA agreements and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction; she sought quashing of the orders and ancillary documents as void ab initio.

The respondents contended that Section 11 proceedings enforced a statutory obligation to convey in terms of MOFA agreements and did not adjudicate title. The High Court applied settled precedents, including a Division Bench decision in Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala and the Supreme Court’s guidance in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, holding that summary MOFA proceedings do not replace a civil adjudication on title and that allegations of breach of natural justice must demonstrate real prejudice.

The writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was relegated to seek relief by instituting a civil suit for declaration, partition or rectification/cancellation of the conveyance. All other questions were kept open and there was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 977 OF 2026 Case Title: Rajani alias Prabhavati Chittaranjan Patil v. Dahisar Siddhi Apartment CHSL & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Niranjan Mogre, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, Additional Government Pleader (for State-Respondent Nos. 17–19)