[Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act] Pendency Of Civil Suit On Construction Irregularities Not A Bar To Deemed Conveyance: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that pendency of a civil suit concerning alleged construction irregularities or inter se disputes between promoters does not bar the grant of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The Court observed that an order of deemed conveyance does not finally adjudicate title and that civil disputes regarding FSI utilisation or additional floors cannot be treated as a blanket prohibition against the exercise of statutory power.

Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed by Quantum Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited, challenging the order rejecting an application under Section 11(3) of MOFA for unilateral deemed conveyance. The Authority rejected the application on the grounds that the area claimed by the society exceeded its entitlement and that, in view of the pendency of suits relating to alleged illegal construction of the 13th and 14th floors and diversion of FSI, the society could file a fresh application after disposal of those suits.

Rejecting the authority's reasoning, the Court observed that the Authority is expected to read it carefully, reconcile it, and then arrive at a reasoned conclusion about the exact area that is liable to be conveyed. It observed:

“When subdivision particulars are on record, the Authority must separate the parcels and determine which parcel corresponds to the society's construction. It cannot treat the entire parent number as a single block and reject the claim without analysing its components.”

The Court further drew a clear distinction between disputes concerning the identity of land and disputes concerning constructional irregularities or FSI utilisation. The pending suits concerned allegations of diversion of FSI and excess construction between wings. They did not dispute the existence of the buildings, the execution of registered agreements, the formation of the society, or the identity of the land parcel on which the buildings stood.

The Court held that an order under Section 11 merely transfers the promoter's right, title and interest to the society and does not validate unauthorised construction nor preclude civil courts from adjudicating disputes regarding FSI or additional floors.

“The mere pendency of civil suits cannot operate as a blanket prohibition against the exercise of statutory power under Section 11 of MOFA. If that principle were accepted, any promoter or contesting party could stall a deemed conveyance simply by filing a suit and keeping it pending,” the Court observed,

Holding that the society had established entitlement, at least prima facie, the Court quashed the order dated 22 April 2022. It declared that the petitioner society is entitled to unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of the said land together with Wings A and B standing thereon and directed the Competent Authority to issue the certificate within four weeks.

Case Title: Quantum Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. AHCL-PEL & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 10220 of 2025]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84

Click Here To Read/Download Order