The Bombay High Court has clarified the interplay between the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, resolving long-standing ambiguity over which law governs deemed conveyance. The judgment affirms that while RERA is the primary regulatory framework for real estate projects, certain provisions of the State Act remain operative, particularly those empowering the Competent Authority to effect deemed conveyance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Ramanlal Nathmal Jain & Ors., challenged an order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, which granted deemed conveyance of land and common areas to the respondent housing society, Digitally signed by SHABNOOR Lumbini Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioners contended that the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act does not apply to their project because it falls under the purview of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), a Central legislation. They further alleged that the conveyance order included excess land area beyond what was legally permissible.
Key Facts
- The project in question was registered under RERA, 2016, prior to the issuance of the deemed conveyance order.
- The Competent Authority, acting under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, passed an order on an unspecified date prior to 2023, conveying land to the housing society.
- The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 15472 of 2023 on an unspecified date challenging the validity of the conveyance order on two grounds: (1) inapplicability of the State Act due to RERA’s supremacy, and (2) inclusion of excess land area in the conveyance.
- The petitioners did not file a civil suit to challenge the extent of land conveyed.
Procedural History
- Prior to 2023: Competent Authority issued deemed conveyance order under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.
- 2023: Writ Petition No. 15472 of 2023 filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 20 January 2026: Division Bench of the Bombay High Court passed an order in a related matter, recording a statement by the State Government regarding the legislative amendment to the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.
- 6 April 2026: Present petition heard and disposed of by Justice Amit Borkar.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Argued that RERA, 2016, being a Central law enacted under Entry 56 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, overrides the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, a State law.
- Contended that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the conveyance order under the State Act once RERA applied.
- Alleged that the conveyance included land area exceeding the statutory entitlement, thereby violating the rights of other flat owners.
For the Respondents
- Relied on the Division Bench order dated 20 January 2026, which recorded the State Government’s position that Section 1A has been inserted into the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act to harmonize it with RERA.
- Submitted that Sections 5A, 11A, 13B, 13C, and 13D of the State Act, along with provisions relating to the Competent Authority, continue to operate even after RERA’s enactment.
- Emphasized that Section 11(3) of RERA explicitly preserves the power of the Competent Authority to effect deemed conveyance.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the deemed conveyance order dated prior to 2023, on the grounds of legal inapplicability and excess area conveyed. They also sought a declaration that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, continues to apply to real estate projects registered under RERA, 2016, particularly with respect to the power of the Competent Authority to effect deemed conveyance, and whether the insertion of Section 1A and Section 11A into the State Act resolves any conflict between the two statutes.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, arguing that RERA, as a Central law on a subject in the Union List, must prevail over the State Act. They contended that the Competent Authority’s action under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act was ultra vires once the project was registered under RERA. They cited no specific precedents but emphasized the legislative intent behind RERA to create a uniform national framework for real estate regulation.
For the Respondent
The respondents relied on the Division Bench’s order dated 20 January 2026, which recorded the State Government’s clarification that Section 1A was inserted into the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act to expressly preserve the applicability of Sections 5A, 11A, 13B, 13C, and 13D, as well as the powers of the Competent Authority. They highlighted that Section 11(3) of RERA explicitly states that nothing in the Act shall affect the powers of the Competent Authority under the State Act to effect deemed conveyance. They argued that the legislature intended a complementary, not conflicting, relationship between the two laws.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legislative amendments to the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, particularly the insertion of Section 1A and Section 11A, which were introduced to align the State law with RERA. The Court noted that the State Government, through its official statement recorded by the Division Bench on 20 January 2026, had unequivocally clarified that the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act continues to apply in matters of deemed conveyance, despite RERA’s supremacy in other areas.
"It is clarified that once a project comes under the Real Estate Regulation Act, then the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act will mostly not apply. However, some sections of the State law are still kept alive. These include Sections 5A, 11A, 13B, 13C and 13D, along with provisions dealing with the Competent Authority."
The Court accepted this interpretation as authoritative, noting that the insertion of Section 11A specifically addresses deemed conveyance and demonstrates legislative intent to preserve the Competent Authority’s role. The Court further observed that Section 11(3) of RERA itself provides for the continued operation of State law in this specific context, thereby negating any claim of repugnancy.
Regarding the second ground of challenge - the alleged excess area conveyed - the Court held that such disputes are factual and require evidence, measurement records, and survey documents. The Court reiterated its settled position that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for a civil suit. The Court emphasized that the petitioners retain the right to file a civil suit to contest the extent of conveyance, and that no opinion was expressed on the merits of that factual dispute.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, continues to apply to deemed conveyance proceedings under Sections 5A, 11A, 13B, 13C, and 13D, and that the Competent Authority retains jurisdiction under Section 11 of the State Act, as preserved by Section 11(3) of RERA and the legislative amendment under Section 1A. The petitioners’ challenge on the ground of legal inapplicability failed. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court to contest the extent of land conveyed, with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Deemed Conveyance Remains Under State Authority
- Practitioners must now treat the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act as the proper forum for deemed conveyance applications, even for RERA-registered projects.
- Applications for deemed conveyance filed under RERA alone, without invoking the State Act, are procedurally defective.
- Housing societies must continue to file applications under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, not under RERA, for conveyance of land.
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Resolve Factual Disputes on Area
- Challenges to the quantum of land conveyed must be raised in civil suits, not writ petitions.
- Courts will not examine survey maps, title deeds, or area calculations in writ jurisdiction unless there is a clear violation of statutory limits or mala fide intent.
- Petitioners who seek to challenge conveyance area must file a civil suit within the limitation period and produce documentary evidence.
Legislative Harmonization Is Binding
- Official statements recorded by High Court benches on legislative intent carry persuasive weight, especially when supported by statutory amendments.
- Practitioners must track legislative amendments to State laws that explicitly preserve their operation alongside Central laws.
- The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 does not automatically invalidate State laws where the Central law expressly preserves them.
