Facts: The case involves a challenge by developers and original landowners against orders passed by the Competent Authority granting unilateral deemed conveyance to various cooperative housing societies. The land, originally owned by Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Respondent No. 5), was subdivided into smaller plots. Allotment letters and subsequent development agreements were executed, which the petitioners argued contemplated only the grant of leasehold rights for 99 years rather than a transfer of freehold ownership. The petitioners contended that the individual flat purchase agreements explicitly defined "conveyance" as a "lease". However, the Competent Authority granted deemed conveyance of the right, title, and interest held by the promoters in the land and building to the respondent societies.
Procedural Posture: These are writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the District Deputy Registrar (Competent Authority) who exercised powers under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).
Issue: Whether a promoter can be compelled to execute a conveyance of freehold title to a cooperative housing society when the underlying private agreements (allotment letters and development agreements) only contemplated the grant of leasehold rights.
Holding: Yes, the promoter is bound to convey their entire right, title, and interest in the land and building. If the promoter holds freehold title, they must convey ownership; they cannot unilaterally restrict the transfer to a leasehold interest through private contracts.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that MOFA is a welfare legislation designed to protect flat purchasers and its statutory mandates override private contracts. Under Section 11 of MOFA, a promoter is obligated to convey "his right, title and interest" to the society. The Court held that if a promoter is the absolute owner of the land, the statute does not permit the splitting of rights to retain ownership while granting only a lease to the purchasers. The definition of "promoter" under Section 2(c) is broad and includes landowners who cause construction to be undertaken. Furthermore, the Court noted that in this specific case, no registered lease deed was ever actually executed between the owner and the developers, partly due to municipal restrictions on the land. Therefore, the promoter's subsisting interest remained one of ownership, which must be transferred in its entirety to the society to ensure the purchasers' collective autonomy and security.