[Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act] Second Deemed Conveyance Application Barred If Earlier Rejection Has Attained Finality: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that where an earlier order rejecting a deemed conveyance application has attained finality, a second application seeking the same relief would be barred by principles of res judicata and finality of proceedings. The Court observed that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act does not possess any inherent power of review and cannot reopen or reconsider an issue already decided unless such power is expressly conferred by statute.

Justice Farhan P. Dubash was hearing a writ petition challenging an order granting a deemed conveyance in favour of a co-operative housing society. The controversy arose because the society had earlier filed a deemed conveyance application, which was rejected by the Competent Authority on 4 August 2016 on the ground that a civil suit concerning conveyance rights in respect of the same layout was pending. While rejecting the application, the Competent Authority had granted liberty to file a fresh application after the decision of the civil suit. The order was never challenged, and the civil suit continued to remain pending. Despite this, the society filed a second deemed conveyance application on 3 January 2017, which culminated in the grant of a deemed conveyance.

The petitioner-developer and another co-operative housing society contended that the second application was not maintainable as the earlier order had attained finality and the condition imposed therein had not been fulfilled.

The Court observed that the earlier order had expressly permitted the filing of a fresh application only after the disposal of the pending civil suit. Since the civil suit admittedly remained pending and the earlier order had not been challenged, the parties were bound by that determination.

The Court further observed that the parties, subject matter and foundational facts in both applications remained the same. The pendency of the civil suit, which formed the basis of the earlier rejection, had also not changed. In such circumstances, the principles of res judicata and finality of proceedings applied, rendering the second deemed conveyance application not maintainable.

The Court noted that the grounds urged in the second application were essentially arguments directed against the correctness of the earlier order, including assertions that certain orders passed in the civil proceedings had not been brought to the notice of the Competent Authority and that Section 10 of the CPC was inapplicable. These, the Court held, did not constitute new circumstances but amounted to seeking reconsideration of an issue already decided.

Observing that neither Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act nor any allied provision confers review jurisdiction upon the Competent Authority, the Court held that by entertaining the second application despite the subsisting earlier order and absence of changed circumstances, the Competent Authority had effectively exercised a power of review not recognised by the statute.

“Neither Section 11 of MOFA nor any allied provision confers review jurisdiction upon the Competent Authority. Proceedings for deemed conveyance are summary adjudications intended to enforce statutory obligations of the Promoter. The Competent Authority has neither been conferred with any appellate nor any review powers. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional defect,” the Court observed.

Holding that the second application was barred and that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, the Court set aside the impugned order granting deemed conveyance.

Case Title: B. K. Corporation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2453 of 2018]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 289

Click Here To Read/Download Order