The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed a critical boundary in administrative law: writ jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to resolve complex civil disputes over development rights, even when they arise in the context of deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title or development potential issues, leaving such matters exclusively to civil courts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s. Gayatrree Properties, owns development rights linked to Wing C of a multi-wing residential project comprising Wings A, B, and C. All wings were constructed under a single sanctioned layout and common plan. Respondent No. 1, Gayatrree Legacy A and B Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., obtained a deemed conveyance order from the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The petitioner contends that this order effectively transfers all Floor Space Index (FSI) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) associated with the entire project to the society, thereby blocking its lawful right to develop Wing C using the remaining FSI and TDR.
Procedural History
- The Competent Authority, acting under Section 11 of MOFA, issued an order for deemed conveyance in favor of the society.
- The petitioner challenged the order before the Bombay High Court via a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- The petitioner relied on a Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018, which mandates that FSI be apportioned proportionately among multiple societies on a single plot.
- The High Court did not examine the merits of the FSI allocation but focused on jurisdictional limits.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the deemed conveyance order, arguing it unlawfully extinguished its right to utilize unutilized FSI and TDR for Wing C. It requested that the Competent Authority be directed to issue a revised conveyance order reflecting apportioned development rights.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning unutilized FSI, TDR, and development rights, or whether such issues fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the Competent Authority erred by granting conveyance without accounting for the Government Resolution’s requirement to apportion FSI among societies. It contended that the order effectively transferred all development potential to the society, violating its statutory rights under the sanctioned plan. Reliance was placed on Shimmering Heights CHSL v. State of Maharashtra and Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala v. Competent Authority to assert that conveyance must align with the original sanctioned layout.
For the Respondent
The respondents countered that the Competent Authority’s role is limited to executing conveyance as per registered documents and sanctioned plans. They argued that the petitioner’s grievance about FSI and TDR usage is a civil dispute concerning proprietary rights, which cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction. The authority, they submitted, lacks the power to determine ownership, development potential, or contractual entitlements.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous review of its own precedents and the statutory framework under Section 11 of MOFA. It emphasized that the Competent Authority’s mandate is purely ministerial: to ensure conveyance is executed in accordance with the terms of the registered agreement and the sanctioned plan. The Court held that issues involving FSI apportionment, TDR utilization, and development rights are inherently civil in nature, requiring evidentiary hearings, valuation, and adjudication of title - functions beyond the authority’s competence.
"The Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Act cannot decide disputes about title, ownership, or development rights."
The Court reiterated its consistent line of decisions in P.R. Enterprises v. Competent Authority and Mehboob Ali Humza v. District Sub Registrar, underscoring that writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is not a substitute for a civil suit. The petitioner’s claim, though grounded in statutory norms, involved factual disputes requiring proof of entitlement, contractual interpretation, and economic impact - all beyond the scope of judicial review in writ proceedings.
The Court further noted that the Government Resolution cited by the petitioner, while relevant, does not confer jurisdiction on the Competent Authority to adjudicate its application. Such policy directives must be enforced through appropriate civil remedies.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA has no jurisdiction to determine FSI or TDR entitlements, and that such disputes must be resolved through a civil suit. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a civil suit to assert its claims, with time spent in this petition excluded from limitation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Writ Jurisdiction Is Not a Civil Court Substitute
- Practitioners must avoid filing writ petitions under Article 227 to challenge FSI, TDR, or development rights disputes arising from deemed conveyance.
- Any claim involving proprietary entitlements, contractual interpretation, or economic loss must be pursued in a civil court.
- Courts will routinely dismiss such writs on jurisdictional grounds, regardless of the strength of the underlying claim.
Deemed Conveyance Is Limited to Title Transfer
- Section 11 of MOFA only facilitates transfer of title and possession as per registered documents.
- Competent Authorities must not be pressured to resolve ancillary development disputes; doing so exceeds their statutory mandate.
- Developers and societies must ensure that FSI and TDR allocations are explicitly documented in original agreements to avoid future litigation.
Civil Remedies Remain the Exclusive Path
- Petitioners should file suits under Section 9 of the CPC seeking declaration, injunction, or damages for wrongful appropriation of development rights.
- Time spent in dismissed writ petitions will be excluded from limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, provided the suit is filed promptly after dismissal.
- Evidence such as sanctioned plans, Government Resolutions, and development agreements must be preserved and presented in civil proceedings.
