The Bombay High Court has clarified that a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance granted under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) does not conclusively determine the title of the land in question. While the Competent Authority may confer rights on a society, aggrieved parties retain the liberty to seek a declaration of title through a civil suit. This judgment underscores the limited jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under MOFA and the primacy of civil courts in resolving title disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, claiming ownership of a land parcel, challenged an order dated 11 June 2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane, and the Competent Authority. The order granted a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in favor of Respondent No. 2, a co-operative housing society. The petitioners contended that they were denied a hearing and that the society provided misleading addresses to avoid service of notices.
Key Facts
- The petitioners initially resided at Flat No. 707, Ostwal Ornate Building No. 2, Jesal Park, Bhayandar (West), Thane-401105
- The first petitioner, Dattaram Bhiva Vaiti, passed away during the pendency of the petition, and his legal heirs were brought on record via an interim application allowed on 1 April 2024
- The legal heirs of the first petitioner are represented by Ramesh Dattaram Vaiti, residing at A/105, Vasundhara Apartment, Station Road, Bandarwadi Naka, Bhayandar (East), Thane-401105
- The society’s address in the application was Old Survey No. 149, New 11A, Hissa No. 7, near Railway Station, Bandarwadi, Bhayandar (East), Thane-401105
- The petitioners alleged that the society deliberately provided a misleading address to avoid service of notices
- The society claimed that the structure at the address was demolished, and notices were published in Daily Punyanagari and Active Times as substituted service
- The petitioners contended that they are the real landowners and that the society’s members purchased flats from M/s. Siddhant Developers, which lacked the right to construct or sell the flats
- Only one Agreement for Sale, executed by M/s. Siddhant Developers in favor of Narmada Nandram Ahuja, was produced before the Competent Authority
- The petitioners argued that the building was unauthorizedly constructed in 2002, while the society claimed it was constructed in 1984
Procedural History
- 11 April 2022: Competent Authority passed an order granting unilateral deemed conveyance in favor of Respondent No. 2-Society
- 11 June 2022: Order assailed by the petitioners in the present writ petition
- 1 April 2024: Interim application allowed to bring legal heirs of the first petitioner on record
- 10 July 2026: Present judgment passed by the Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 11 June 2022 granting unilateral deemed conveyance to the society. They also sought a declaration that the land belongs to them and that the society’s members had no valid title to the flats.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA can conclusively determine the title of land while granting a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance, or whether such an order is subject to challenge in a civil court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners argued that they were denied a fair hearing before the Competent Authority, violating principles of natural justice
- They contended that the society provided misleading addresses to avoid service of notices, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to present their case
- The petitioners claimed that M/s. Siddhant Developers lacked the authority to construct the building or sell the flats, as they were not the rightful owners of the land
- They asserted that the building was unauthorizedly constructed in 2002, contrary to the society’s claim of 1984
For the Respondents
- Respondent No. 2-Society argued that it took all possible steps to serve notices, including substituted service through newspaper publications, as the structure at the address was demolished
- The society contended that the Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA is limited to granting deemed conveyance and does not extend to determining title disputes
- It was submitted that the petitioners had ample opportunity to challenge the society’s claim in a civil court but failed to do so for over two decades
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Competent Authority’s role under Section 11 of MOFA is limited to conferring rights that the developer was supposed to transfer to the society. The issuance of a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance does not finally determine the title of the land. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arunkumar Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., which held that such certificates are subject to the outcome of civil court proceedings.
"All that has happened as of now is that the Competent Authority has sought to confer some title in respect of the land on which society's building is standing in favour of the society. Issuance of such certificate does not come in the way of the Petitioners to secure a declaration of title from the Civil Court. In that sense, the Certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance, as well as the registered deed of conveyance would remain subject to the decree that would be passed by the Civil Court."
The Court further noted that the petitioners had lived with the reality of the building’s existence for 24 years without taking any action to challenge its construction or the sale of flats. It emphasized that the Competent Authority cannot determine intricate title disputes and that such matters must be adjudicated by a civil court.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners at liberty to file a civil suit for a declaration of title. The Court held:
- The order dated 11 June 2022 granting unilateral deemed conveyance remains valid but is subject to the outcome of any civil court proceedings
- The petitioners are free to institute a civil suit to seek a declaration that the land conveyed to the society belongs to them
- All contentions on the merits of the title dispute are expressly kept open, and the civil court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limited Jurisdiction of Competent Authority Under MOFA
- The Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA lacks the power to determine title disputes. Its role is confined to granting unilateral deemed conveyance based on the presumption that the developer had the right to transfer the land
- Practitioners must note that a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance does not preclude aggrieved parties from seeking a declaration of title in a civil court
Civil Suit Remains the Appropriate Forum for Title Disputes
- Parties aggrieved by a deemed conveyance order must file a civil suit to challenge the title of the land. The High Court will not entertain writ petitions on intricate title disputes under MOFA
- The judgment reinforces that MOFA is not a substitute for civil court proceedings in matters involving complex questions of ownership
Delay in Challenging Construction Can Be Fatal
- The Court took note of the petitioners’ 24-year delay in challenging the construction of the building. Practitioners should advise clients to act promptly to avoid prejudicing their case
- Delayed challenges may weaken the claimant’s position, as courts are less inclined to interfere in long-standing arrangements
Substituted Service and Natural Justice
- The judgment clarifies that substituted service (e.g., newspaper publications) may be sufficient to meet the requirements of natural justice if the party takes reasonable steps to serve notices
- However, parties must ensure that addresses provided in applications are accurate to avoid allegations of deliberate evasion of service
