The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed a critical boundary in administrative adjudication under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963: disputes concerning Floor Space Index (FSI) and development rights cannot be resolved by the Competent Authority through writ jurisdiction. This ruling clarifies the limits of statutory forums and reinforces the primacy of civil courts in property title and development-related conflicts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, as legal heir of the original landowners, contends that after the construction of the residential building by respondent No. 1, a balance FSI of 1096 square metres accrued to the original landowners under the terms of the development agreement. The petitioner claims this FSI constitutes a valuable development right that was wrongfully appropriated by the housing society without compensation or legal transfer.
Procedural History
- The petitioner approached the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, seeking a deemed conveyance of the property.
- During the proceedings, the petitioner raised the issue of unallocated FSI as part of its claim for equitable relief.
- The Competent Authority, while granting the deemed conveyance, also directed that the petitioner’s FSI claim be deemed resolved in favour of the society.
- The petitioner challenged this aspect before the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Competent Authority’s order to the extent it adjudicated the FSI dispute and requested that the matter be remitted for proper adjudication in a civil court.
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 accrued FSI, development rights, or ownership entitlements beyond the execution of conveyance as per registered documents.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Shimmering Heights CHSL v. State of Maharashtra and Mehboob Ali Humza v. District Sub Registrar, arguing that the Competent Authority’s role is strictly limited to ensuring conveyance in accordance with sanctioned plans and registered agreements. The FSI dispute, they contended, involves complex questions of title, contractual rights, and valuation - matters requiring evidentiary hearings and civil adjudication. The Authority’s attempt to decide this issue exceeded its statutory mandate and violated principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the FSI claim was ancillary to the conveyance process and could be resolved within the same forum to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. They contended that the Competent Authority, being a specialized body under MOFA, was best placed to interpret the development agreement and determine equitable distribution of rights. The State, represented by the AGP, supported this view, citing administrative convenience.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous statutory interpretation of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, emphasizing that the Competent Authority’s mandate is confined to facilitating the transfer of title and possession as per the terms of the registered agreement and sanctioned layout. The Court observed that the Act does not confer adjudicatory powers over civil disputes concerning development rights, FSI allocation, or financial compensation.
"The Competent Authority under Section 11 is not a civil court. It cannot decide questions of title, ownership, or development rights which require detailed evidence, cross-examination, and application of principles of contract and property law."
The Court reviewed its own precedents in Shimmering Heights, Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala, and P.R. Enterprises, noting a consistent line of authority that such disputes fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts. The Court rejected the notion that administrative convenience could override statutory limits on jurisdiction. It further held that the FSI claim, being a proprietary right with potential monetary value, could not be summarily extinguished without due process.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the Competent Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the FSI dispute. The core legal holding is that development rights and FSI allocation disputes must be resolved in a civil court, not through writ jurisdiction under Article 227. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a civil suit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Civil Courts Are the Exclusive Forum for FSI Disputes
- Practitioners must avoid filing writ petitions under Article 227 to resolve FSI, TDR, or development right claims under MOFA.
- Any attempt to raise such issues before the Competent Authority will be struck down as ultra vires.
- Legal notices and pleadings must clearly distinguish between conveyance formalities (within Section 11) and proprietary claims (requiring civil suit).
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Bypass Civil Procedure
- The Court’s grant of liberty to file a civil suit reinforces that procedural safeguards in civil litigation - evidence, cross-examination, valuation - are non-negotiable in property disputes.
- Petitioners should not delay filing civil suits, even if a writ petition is pending; the limitation period will be tolled for the time spent in the writ proceeding.
- Practitioners must advise clients to initiate civil suits promptly to preserve remedies and avoid estoppel.
Deemed Conveyance Does Not Imply Transfer of Development Rights
- A deemed conveyance under Section 11 transfers only the title and possession as per the original agreement and sanctioned plan.
- Any additional rights such as FSI, TDR, or transferable development rights must be expressly granted in the agreement or acquired through separate legal process.
- Housing societies cannot assume ownership of unallocated FSI merely because conveyance has been granted.
