GERALD MICHAEL MISQUITTA v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 11 ORS.
Deemed Conveyance under MOFA - Mandatory Requirement of Notice to All Co-owners and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice to Ensure Procedural Fairness.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:5170
Decision Date: 25-02-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963; Principles of Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem; Constitution of India, Article 226; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
- Facts: The Petitioner is a co-owner and beneficiary of a property in Vile Parle, Mumbai. In 1974, the original owners (Misquitta family) executed a 98-year lease in favor of partners of M/s. C.S. Enterprises, who later constructed a building. Respondent No. 3, a Co-operative Housing Society formed by flat purchasers, sought a Unilateral Deemed Conveyance of the land and building under the MOFA. The Competent Authority (Respondent No. 2) granted the certificate in 2014, and a subsequent Deed of Assignment was registered. However, the Society had only arrayed six legal heirs as opponents, omitting the Petitioner and several other co-owners. Furthermore, one of the arrayed opponents had died fourteen years prior to the application. The Petitioner challenged the order on the grounds of violation of natural justice and lack of notice.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the Deemed Conveyance Certificate dated 28th May 2014 and the subsequent registered Deed of Assignment.
- Issue: Is the Competent Authority required to give all concerned owners a fair opportunity of being heard before granting a Certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of the MOFA?
- Holding: Yes. The Court held that the failure to join the Petitioner and other co-owners, and the passing of an order against a deceased person, constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate of the MOFA.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 11(4) of the MOFA and the relevant Rules cast a statutory obligation on the Competent Authority to conduct a proper enquiry and verify the authenticity of documents. The Authority must provide a "reasonable opportunity of being heard" to the Promoter and all parties whose rights might be affected. The Court emphasized that while the Authority does not decide complex questions of title, it cannot overlook the principle of "audi alteram partem". In this case, the Society selectively arrayed owners and the Authority failed to verify the status of other co-owners. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents stating that procedural fairness holds an inherent value, and an order passed in breach of natural justice against a property owner is void and must be set aside.
🔒 For Members Only