QUANTUM PARK CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. AHCL PEL AND ORS
Deemed Conveyance under MOFA - Pendency of Civil Suits regarding FSI and Construction Deviations is No Bar to Granting Unilateral Deemed Conveyance for Identified Land Parcels.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9301
Decision Date: 24-02-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963; Constitution of India, Article 227; Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Transfer of Property Law; Administrative Law - Exercise of Statutory Jurisdiction
- Facts: The petitioner, Quantum Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited, sought a unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 4,242.90 square meters under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). The land was part of a larger plot that had undergone various amalgamations and subdivisions under a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme. The promoter constructed two buildings, Wing A and Wing B, and transferred possession to flat purchasers but failed to execute the conveyance. The Competent Authority (Respondent No. 10) rejected the application on two primary grounds: first, that the area claimed (4,242.90 sq. mtrs.) exceeded the area recorded in certain documents as 3,635.10 square meters; and second, that civil suits were pending regarding the legality of the 13th and 14th floors and the alleged unauthorized diversion of Floor Space Index (FSI).
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13 April 2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which had rejected their application for deemed conveyance.
- Issue: Whether the pendency of civil suits regarding constructional deviations and disputes over the exact area of entitlement constitutes a valid legal ground for the Competent Authority to reject or indefinitely postpone an application for deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA.
- Holding: No, the rejection was legally unsustainable. The Court held that the Competent Authority must determine the area liable to be conveyed based on available records and that the pendency of civil suits regarding construction deviations does not bar the statutory exercise of granting a deemed conveyance.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Competent Authority abdicated its statutory duty by adopting an "all or nothing" approach. If a society claims a larger area, the Authority is duty-bound to identify the correct lesser area supported by official survey and subdivision records (such as the MR plan and SRA orders) rather than rejecting the claim entirely. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an order of deemed conveyance does not validate unauthorized construction nor finally adjudicate complex civil disputes. It merely transfers the promoter's right, title, and interest to the society, subject to existing rights. Treating civil litigation as a categorical bar would defeat the object of MOFA, which is to protect flat purchasers from being held hostage by promoters. Since the pending suits related to FSI allocation and not the underlying title or identity of the land, they were extraneous to the Section 11 proceedings.
🔒 For Members Only