[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Flyedge Cooperative Premises Society ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:3197
9-wp-11030-2025-final.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11030 OF 2025
SHABNOOR
AYUB
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
Flyedge Cooperative Premises Society
PATHAN
Date: 2026.01.22
Ltd.
17:42:16 +0530
A Society registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960
Having its registered address at
CTS No. PF 765, Next to Kora Kendra Flyover,
S. V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 092. ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Ministry of Cooperation, Mantralaya,
Mumbai (Summons to be served on the
Learned Government Pleader appearing for
the State of Maharashtra)
2. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Mumbai - 4
Competent Authority U/S 5A of MOFA
Having address at Bhandari Bank Bulding, 2nd
Floor, P. L. Kale Guruji Marg, Dadar (W),
Mumbai 400 028(Summons to be served on
the Learned Government Pleader appearing
for the State of Maharashtra)
3. Manvi Holding Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Ishwarlal S. Jain
Having address at Johri Bazar,
Jalgaon - 425001
4. Tirumala Designers Private Limited
A Company incorporated under
the provisions of Companies Act 2013
1
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 22:57:35 :::
9-wp-11030-2025-final.doc
Having registered address at 16A/41,
Mahant Krupa, Manish Nagar,
Four Bunglows, J. P Raod, Andheri (West)
Mumbai 400053
5. Ashok Thimmappa Pakkala
Having address at 508, 5th Floor,
CTS No. FP 765, Next to Kora Kendra Flyover,
S V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 092. ... Respondents
Mr. Anil D'souza a/w Mark Dbritto i/b Ernest Tuscano, for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Abhishek C. Bhadang, AGP, for the State - Respondent.
Mr. Sandeep Waghmare, for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Dinesh Rane, for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Mutahhar Khan a/w Diksha Shirodkar, Smriti Sanjeev
i/b Mhatre Law Associates, for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 20, 2026
JUDGMENT.:
1. Leave is granted to amend the petition and remove
Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are not a necessary or proper party
because they are neither the promoter nor the owner of the
property. The Petitioner shall carry out the amendment forthwith.
2. The Petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society registered
under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.
The Petitioner challenges the order of the Competent Authority
under MOFA. The Competent Authority has dismissed the
9-wp-11030-2025-final.doc
Petitioner's application for deemed conveyance under Section
11(3) of MOFA.
3. The facts leading to the petition are as follows. On 10 March
2006, an agreement was executed between Ramnarayan
Gangadhar Manudhane as Karta and Manager on an as is where is
basis. On 15 May 2009, the Municipal Corporation sanctioned the
building plans and issued an Intimation of Disapproval in favour of
Respondent No.3. On 24 April 2012, the Municipal Corporation
issued a Commencement Certificate for the construction. On 15
July 2017, the Municipal Corporation issued an Occupation
Certificate for the building. Respondent No.3, as developer, sold
flats to purchasers who later became members of the Petitioner
Society by executing agreements for sale under Section 4 of MOFA.
Respondent No.3 did not register the cooperative society. The
Petitioner Society was registered on 2 December 2021. After
changes were approved by the Municipal Corporation, the
Completion Certificate was re-endorsed on 29 August 2019. On 2
December 2022, the Municipal Corporation granted an Occupation
Certificate in favour of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 did not
execute the conveyance in favour of the Society even after its
registration. Therefore, on 2 April 2024, the Petitioner filed an
application for deemed conveyance under Section 11(3) of MOFA.
4. Respondent No.3 opposed the deemed conveyance.
Respondent No.3 claimed to be the developer and opposed the
application. Respondent No.3 argued that the Petitioner had
suppressed material facts and that the application was not
maintainable. Respondent No.3 also argued that Clauses 22, 39C,
9-wp-11030-2025-final.doc
45 and 56 of the agreement barred the Competent Authority from
granting conveyance. Respondent No.3 further argued that
deemed conveyance could not be granted unless its alleged dues
were cleared. Some interveners also opposed the application. They
are neither owners nor developers. Their objections are irrelevant
and do not require consideration.
5. The Competent Authority dismissed the application mainly
on the ground that the property card contains a note prohibiting
transactions in respect of CTS or FP No. 765. The Competent
Authority held that this note creates a barrier to granting deemed
conveyance because it prevents transfer of a clear and marketable
title.
6. The Petitioner's advocate submitted that the Competent
Authority has given a flimsy and unsustainable reason. He
submitted that any defect or note in the property card does not
affect the legal right of a registered cooperative housing society to
seek deemed conveyance. He submitted that action under Section
11(3) of MOFA depends on the legal duty of the promoter and the
agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA. He submitted that
the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) has the power to
issue a certificate of deemed conveyance. He submitted that once it
is shown that the promoter had a legal and contractual duty to
convey the property, that the flat purchasers have formed a
cooperative society, and that the promoter has failed to convey his
rights within the time allowed, then the Competent Authority must
grant deemed conveyance. He also submitted that revenue entries
have no relevance while exercising power under Section 11(3) of
9-wp-11030-2025-final.doc
MOFA. He pointed out an application dated 27 February 2025 filed
by Respondent No.3 before the Competent Authority, in which
Respondent No.3 stated that he has no objection to unilateral
deemed conveyance in accordance with law. He also relied on the
Occupation Certificate dated 2 December 2022.
7. On the other hand, the advocate for Respondent No.3
submitted that the purchasers have not cleared the alleged dues.
He submitted that under the agreement, the promoter has full
discretion either to transfer the property on ownership basis or to
grant it on lease. He submitted that such discretion is given to the
promoter under the agreement. He therefore submitted that since
the promoter has two options, either to execute a lease deed or to
execute a conveyance, there is no need to interfere with the order
of the Competent Authority. He prayed that the application be
dismissed.
8. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are neither owners nor developers.
They do not fall within the definition of promoter under MOFA.
Their rights are not affected by the decision to grant deemed
conveyance in favour of the Petitioner Society.
9. The agreements for sale executed by Respondent No.3 show
a contractual obligation to transfer ownership to the flat
purchasers. The Petitioner society was registered on 2 December
2021. The Occupation Certificate dated 2 December 2022 is on
record. Respondent No.3 did not execute conveyance after
registration. These facts support the statutory claim for deemed
conveyance.
9-wp-11030-2025-final.doc
10. The Competent Authority erred in treating a note in the
property card as a bar to deeming conveyance. The property card
entry is a revenue record. It does not, by itself, negate the
promoter's statutory and contractual duty to convey. Where the
promoter sells flats under agreements for sale and then fails to
execute conveyance, the statutory remedy under Section 11(3) is
triggered by that failure. The property card entry cannot be used to
strip the purchasers of that statutory remedy without clear,
supporting evidence of a legal impediment.
11. Respondent No.3's bare allegation of unpaid dues lacks
evidential support on the record. No decree, no registered claim,
and no document showing a quantified demand and legal basis for
a lien appear on record. In contrast, Respondent No.3 filed an
application dated 27 February 2025 before the Competent
Authority stating he has no objection to unilateral deemed
conveyance in accordance with law. That document supports the
Petitioner's entitlement. In the absence of admissible proof of dues,
the alleged arrears do not justify withholding deemed conveyance.
12. The submission that the promoter had an absolute
contractual option to grant lease instead of conveyance cannot
prevail on these facts. The agreements produced on record are
agreements for sale under Section 4 of MOFA. Those agreements
impose on the promoter a duty to convey ownership to the
purchasers. A contractual clause permitting an alternative does not
defeat a purchaser's statutory remedy where the promoter sold on
the basis of ownership and then failed to convey.
9-wp-11030-2025-final.doc
13. Objections raised by interveners who are neither owners nor
promoters warrant no weight. They have no proprietary right that
the grant of deemed conveyance would impair. The Competent
Authority should not have given their objections controlling effect
over the statutory claim of the registered society.
14. The Competent Authority should have exercised the power
under Section 11(3) to grant a certificate of deemed conveyance
once the statutory and contractual facts were established. The
Authority had the jurisdiction and the duty to do so.
15. Hence the order of the Competent Authority dated 20.5.2025
is set aside.
16. The Competent Authority is directed to grant a certificate of
deemed conveyance in favour of the Petitioner cooperative society
as per application at Ex. I annexed to the present petition.
17. The Competent Authority shall complete the formalities and
issue the certificate within 15 days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
18. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
