Facts: The Petitioner, a legal heir of the original landowner, challenged a Deemed Conveyance Order and related certificates/deeds obtained by Respondent No. 1 (a cooperative housing society) under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). The Petitioner alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression of facts in the proceedings before the Competent Authority, arguing that the conveyance included land and structures (ancestral chawl and temple) beyond what the flat purchasers were contractually entitled to, and that the proceedings violated natural justice.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Deemed Conveyance Order and related documents.
Issue: Did the Competent Authority err in granting the Deemed Conveyance Order, and should the High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the order, given allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, violation of natural justice, and inclusion of land beyond contractual entitlements?
Holding: No, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, relegating the Petitioner to avail remedies by way of a civil suit before the competent civil court.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA exercises limited and summary jurisdiction, primarily to enforce the promoter's statutory obligation to execute conveyance. It does not adjudicate complicated questions of ownership or inter se title disputes, which fall within the domain of the civil court. The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala and others versus Competent Authority (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6028), stating that a deemed conveyance only transfers the promoter's existing right, title, and interest, and does not enlarge it. The Court also cited State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706, emphasizing that a breach of natural justice does not automatically invalidate an action unless real prejudice is demonstrated. The Court found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate such prejudice, as the estate was sufficiently represented in the proceedings, and other legal heirs had given their consent. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's challenge related to mixed questions of fact and law requiring detailed examination of title documents, which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings. The proper remedy is a civil suit where the Petitioner can seek a declaration of title and other appropriate relief.