The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that disputes concerning the extent of land, ownership of common areas, or title conflicts in deemed conveyance proceedings under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The judgment clarifies that such matters demand full factual adjudication only possible in a civil court, reinforcing the limited role of statutory authorities under MOFA.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a promoter under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), challenged a deemed conveyance order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA. The order conveyed ownership of internal roads to the flat purchasers’ federation. The petitioner contested this, relying on Clause M of the sale agreement, which purportedly reserved ownership of internal roads, open spaces, and amenity areas to the developer permanently. The petitioner further argued that these roads had since been notified as Development Plan (DP) roads, entitling it to compensation, and that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) barred the Competent Authority from proceeding.
Procedural History
- 2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5974 of 2025 under Article 226 challenging the deemed conveyance order.
- Competent Authority: Issued order granting conveyance of internal roads to the society, excluding open spaces and amenities as per Clause M.
- Petitioner’s Challenge: Argued that conveyance of internal roads violated the agreement and statutory framework.
- Respondents: The flat purchasers’ federation and state authorities defended the order as compliant with MOFA’s statutory mandate.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the deemed conveyance order, a declaration that internal roads remain its property, and compensation for DP road conversion. It also sought stay on the order pending adjudication, invoking the IBC moratorium.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to adjudicate disputes over the extent of land, ownership of internal roads, or validity of contractual clauses that conflict with statutory rights under the MOFA Act, or whether such issues must be resolved exclusively in a civil court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Clause M of the sale agreement to assert permanent ownership of internal roads and amenity spaces. It contended that the Competent Authority exceeded its mandate by conveying these areas, violating the contractual terms. It further invoked Section 14 of the IBC, arguing that the moratorium barred any statutory authority from acting against the promoter during insolvency proceedings. It cited Anudan Properties to argue that statutory functions are suspended during moratorium.
For the Respondent
The respondents countered that MOFA’s statutory scheme overrides private contractual terms that seek to deny flat purchasers their statutory rights. They emphasized that Section 4 and Form V of MOFA mandate conveyance of common areas to the association of purchasers. They argued that the Competent Authority’s role is ministerial - limited to verifying registered agreements and sanctioned plans - and that title disputes fall outside its purview. They relied on Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala and other precedents to assert that writ courts cannot act as civil courts.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the statutory framework under MOFA and the limits of writ jurisdiction. It held that any contractual clause that seeks to permanently retain ownership of land intended for conveyance to flat purchasers is void as it contravenes the object of MOFA, which is to vest common areas in the residents’ association. The Court emphasized that statutory rights cannot be derogated by private agreement.
"A private contract cannot derogate from statutory rights conferred upon flat purchasers under the Act. Permanent retention of ownership by the promoter in respect of land intended to be conveyed to the organisation of flat purchasers is not in line with the object of the MOFA Act."
The Court then examined the scope of writ jurisdiction. It reiterated that writ courts are not forums for adjudicating title disputes, ownership claims, or factual questions requiring documentary and oral evidence. The Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA performs a limited, quasi-administrative function: it confirms conveyance based on registered documents and sanctioned plans. It does not resolve conflicting claims of ownership.
The Court distinguished Anudan Properties to clarify that Section 14 of the IBC does not bar statutory authorities from performing non-monetary, public-interest functions. Deemed conveyance under MOFA is not a debt recovery mechanism; it is the enforcement of a statutory obligation in specie. Therefore, the moratorium does not apply.
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s remedies remain fully intact. It may file a civil suit to challenge the extent of conveyance, claim compensation for DP road conversion, or contest ownership of internal roads. The deemed conveyance order does not operate as res judicata in civil proceedings.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to resolve title or ownership disputes under MOFA, and that Section 14 of the IBC does not bar deemed conveyance proceedings. The petitioner’s claims must be pursued in a civil court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Civil Court Is the Exclusive Forum for Title Disputes
- Practitioners must advise clients that challenges to the quantum or nature of land conveyed under MOFA must be filed as civil suits, not writ petitions.
- Writ courts will routinely dismiss petitions seeking to re-litigate factual ownership claims, even if based on contractual terms.
- Promoters cannot use Article 226 to delay or obstruct statutory conveyance processes.
Statutory Rights Override Private Contracts
- Any clause in a sale agreement that seeks to exclude common areas from conveyance is unenforceable under Section 4 and Form V of MOFA.
- Developers must ensure agreements comply with statutory mandates; non-compliant clauses will be struck down.
- Flat purchasers’ statutory right to common areas cannot be waived by private agreement.
IBC Moratorium Does Not Shield Promoters from Statutory Obligations
- The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies only to monetary claims and recovery actions.
- Statutory duties such as conveyance under MOFA, RERA compliance, or environmental clearances continue despite insolvency.
- Practitioners representing flat purchasers may now confidently proceed with deemed conveyance even if the promoter is under IBC proceedings.
