Case at a Glance
A 46-member society of flat purchasers in Malad sought deemed conveyance of the land proportionate to the built-up area of its building, but the Competent Authority refused because the whole layout was still being developed. The landowners relied on a 2014 affidavit-cum-no-objection in which the flat purchasers had agreed to further development and to conveyance only after the layout was complete. The Bombay High Court held that while the Competent Authority can check whether consent exists, its validity was already before the City Civil Court in the society’s own suit. It declined to interfere, allowed a fresh conveyance application after the suit, and asked the civil court to decide it within about six months.
The layout of 4,163.70 square metres at Village Malad (North) contained three buildings: the old ‘Madina Manzil’ with about 30 tenants, ‘Akshar Kunj’, whose own society exists, and the petitioner’s building, Sanjar Enclave, built under a 2003 layout approval and given an occupation certificate in 2009. On 22 August 2014 the flat purchasers of Sanjar Enclave executed an affidavit-cum-no-objection on ₹100 stamp paper acknowledging that the balance FSI and TDR belonged to the co-owners and agreeing to further development and to conveyance after completion of the layout. The society was registered in 2015. Madina Manzil was demolished in 2019 and rebuilt as ‘Fortune Heights’ under fresh permissions.
The society applied for deemed conveyance of land proportionate to the 4,109.64 square metres of built-up area its building had used. On 31 March 2021 the Competent Authority rejected the application, reasoning that construction in the layout drew on FSI and TDR of the whole land, that conveyance to one society alone would distribute FSI unequally and harm the landowners and the Madina Manzil tenants, and that conveyance should follow completion of the layout. Separately, the society had filed a suit in the City Civil Court to declare the 2014 affidavit illegal and challenge the 2019 permissions; injunction was largely refused. In the writ petition, the society argued that its land share had frozen on the 2003 plan and the affidavit was an invalid blanket consent under Section 7 of MOFA; the landowners argued the application was premature, the consents were valid, and Akshar Kunj society had not been impleaded.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Competent Authority grant deemed conveyance on the basis of the original layout plan when the flat purchasers’ consent to revised development is under challenge in a pending civil suit?
Existence of Consent vs. Its Validity
Justice Sandeep V. Marne first held that when one society in a layout seeks its proportionate share, the other societies must be impleaded, so the omission of Akshar Kunj society was a defect. Applying the freezing principle laid down in Satellite Garden-I CHSL v. State of Maharashtra, the Court explained that a society’s land entitlement freezes on expiry of the period under Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules and is divided on the first sanctioned plan or the plan on the freezing date — unless earlier flat purchasers gave written consent to revision. Relying on Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Panchamurti CHSL, (2025) 02 BOM CK 0794 and Rose Villa CHSL v. DDR, (2026) 10 BOM CK 0360, the Court held that the Competent Authority can make a prima facie inquiry into the existence of consent, and noted that blanket consents are unenforceable, citing the Dosti Corporation and Rajkumar Gulati v. S.D. Corporation decisions.
But the society had not asked the Competent Authority to inquire into consent, had not disclosed the affidavit, Akshar Kunj or Madina Manzil, and had itself sued in the civil court to have the affidavit declared invalid — thereby accepting that validity is for that court. The Competent Authority was therefore precluded from deciding validity, and the High Court under Article 227 could not do what the Authority was barred from doing. Since conveyance on the revised plan depended on whether the consents were valid, the issue was left to the civil court, which must consider disclosure and compliance with Section 7 of MOFA. The Court added that the society’s fears of further redevelopment were not unfounded, that there is no estoppel against law, and that conveyance cannot be delayed to benefit the landowners.
What the Court Actually Held
- In a layout with several buildings, a society seeking its proportionate share of land must implead the other societies in the layout.
- Under the freezing principle, land entitlement is fixed on the first sanctioned plan or the plan on the freezing date, unless earlier flat purchasers gave written consent to revision.
- The Competent Authority may inquire prima facie into the existence of consent, but where its validity is pending in a civil suit filed by the society itself, that question is for the civil court.
- No interference with the order of 31 March 2021; the society may file a fresh deemed conveyance application after the suit is decided, and the City Civil Court should decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months. No costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Deemed conveyance is the main route for Maharashtra flat purchasers to get title to land when builders fail to convey; layout disputes are common in older suburbs.
- Thousands of buyers sign consent affidavits or no-objection letters for further development; the ruling explains how such documents affect their land share.
- It shows how filing a civil suit on the same issue can limit what the Competent Authority and the writ court will decide.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Flat Purchasers
- Read carefully before signing any consent or no-objection for further development; it can affect your society’s land share.
- Blanket consents without disclosure of plans may be unenforceable, but you may have to prove that in court.
- In a layout with several buildings, make all other societies parties to a deemed conveyance application.
For Counsel
- Disclose all consents, affidavits and layout buildings in the deemed conveyance application; suppression weighs against the society.
- Ask the Competent Authority to examine the existence of consent where relevant, relying on Rose Villa CHSL and Nahalchand Laloochand.
- Consider the impact of a parallel civil suit before filing; it may take the validity question away from the Competent Authority.
Key Takeaways
- Land share in a layout freezes on the first sanctioned plan unless purchasers consented to revision.
- The Competent Authority can check that consent exists, not decide its validity when a suit is pending.
- Other societies in the layout are necessary parties.
- The society can apply again for conveyance once the civil suit is decided.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is deemed conveyance?
It is a statutory remedy under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 that lets a society of flat purchasers obtain conveyance of land and building through the Competent Authority when the promoter fails to convey.
Does a consent affidavit signed by flat purchasers bind the society?
It may, if it is a valid written consent to revision of plans. The Court noted that blanket consents are unenforceable, but left the validity of this affidavit to the City Civil Court.
Has the society lost its claim to conveyance?
No. The Court allowed it to file a fresh deemed conveyance application after the civil suit is decided and said conveyance cannot be delayed to benefit the landowners.
Conclusion
The judgment is a reminder that deemed conveyance turns on documents — layout plans, freezing dates and consents — and on choosing the right forum. Having taken the validity of its members’ affidavit to the civil court, the society had to wait for that court’s verdict before its conveyance claim could be decided.
Practical takeaway: Societies seeking deemed conveyance in a multi-building layout should implead every other society, disclose every consent, and think carefully before running a parallel civil suit on the same issue.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com