MOFA Violations Create Continuous Cause of Action; Delay Cannot Bar Title Claims: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation Of The Promotion Of Construction, Sale, Management And Transfer) Act, 1963 create a continuous cause of action, ensuring that housing societies do not lose their right to land title due to mere procedural delays or management lapses.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne set aside a decade-old order of the Competent Authority that had rejected a housing society’s claim for deemed conveyance. The Bench held that denying the right to secure title based on rigid principles of limitation would only benefit errant developers and landowners who have already exploited the land's development potential. 

Court Rationale on Section 11 and Limitation

The Bombay High Court has expressed that "Since MOFA obligations give rise to a continuous cause of action, merely because a society does not apply for deemed conveyance immediately after expiry of period prescribed under Rule 9 of MOF Rules, such inaction does not mean that its right to secure conveyance of the land gets extinguished. The right to have conveyance of the proportionate land, as frozen/crystallised upon expiry of period of 4 months prescribed in Rule 9, can be exercised at any point of time. What needs to be conveyed when right to seek conveyance accrues must also be conveyed when the application/suit is filed for conveyance after expiry of few years."

Addressing the impact on home buyers, the Bench noted that when a flat is purchased, the buyer also acquires a proportionate share in the land. It further remarked that “If the remedy of ogranisation of flat purchasers to secure title in the land is denied, the ultimate beneficiary would be the errant promoter or the land owner who would continue to claim title in the land.”

Background

The Petitioner-Society was registered in 1994 in respect of a building constructed by a developer who failed to secure an occupancy certificate or convey the land. The initial application for deemed conveyance was rejected in 2016 by the Competent Authority citing rival title claims and alleged construction illegalities. Instead of challenging this, the society filed a fresh application in 2024, which was initially allowed but later set aside by the High Court on the grounds that successive applications are not maintainable.

In the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the society challenged the original 2016 rejection. The Respondents argued that the petition was barred by laches due to a 10-year delay. However, the Court distinguished this from cases like Sushama Tulsidas Adhav vs. Pradeep D. Shah and Ors and Devendra Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus. District Deputy Registrar, relying instead on the principles laid down in Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd and M/s. Aakanksha Constructions Company Versus. State of Maharashtra and others. The Bombay High Court concluded that the Petitioner deserved a proportionate share of the land based on the Built-Up Area (BUA) utilized, as documented in municipal records, rather than the entire plot which contained other structures.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 8287 OF 2026
Case Title: Sterling Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (3) & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G.S Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv S. Malhotra, Ms. Chandrakala Singh and Mr. Devansh Malhotra
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohan Savant, Mr. Vincent D'silva, Mr. Suresh Sabrad, Mr. R.A. Shaikh, Mr. P.G. Sawant (AGP)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 7160