KARTIK REGENCY CO OP. HSG. SOC. LTDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. CO OP. DEPT. AND ORS

                                                                       wp12078-2025-J.doc


                      AGK
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO.12078 OF 2025

ATUL                  Kartik Regency Coop. Housing society Ltd.,
GANESH
KULKARNI              having office at Shahabaz, (Belapur)
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.02.06
                      CTS No. 100, 101, 103-107, Behind NRI
12:20:13 +0530
                      Police Station, Kille Gaothan, Belapur,
                      Navi Mumbai, Thane 400 614                   … petitioner

                                           V/s.

                       1. The State of Maharashtra, through
                          Cooperation Department, Mantralaya,
                          Mumbai 400 032
                       2. The District Deputy Registrar,
                          Cooperative Societies, Thane, having
                          office at Gaondevi Mandai Building,
                          First Floor, Near Gaondevi Ground,
                          Gokhale Road, Thane West 400 602
                       3. Vijay Agre,
                          Age __ Years, Occu.: Business.
                       4. Vidya Vijay Agre,
                          Age __ Years, Occu.: Business,
                          both R/at at 703-704, Kartik Regency
                          CHS Limited, Shahabaz, (Belapur),
                          Behind NRI Police Station, Kille
                          Gaothan, Belapur, Navi Mumbai,
                          Thane 400 614.
                       5. Raghwendra Kumar
                       6. Premsingh K. Kumpaval,
                          both 4 and 5 having office at Shop
                          No.36, Ground Floor, Gawri Complex,



                                                      1
                                                       wp12078-2025-J.doc


      Sector 11, C.B.D. Belapur,
      Navi Mumbai, Thane 400 614                  … Respondents



Mr. Sanjiv Sawant with Mr. Rohan Mahadik, Ms.
Kekhala More, & Ms. Nikita Butty i/by the Juris
Partners for the petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Additional G.P. for respondent
Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar i/by Mr. Shivraj Patne and
Mr. Rohan Soman for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Ms. Shivali S. Mhatre for respondent No.6.


               CORAM                   : AMIT BORKAR, J.

               RESERVED ON             : JANUARY 20, 2026

               PRONOUNCED ON           : FEBRUARY 6, 2026

JUDGMENT:

1.    By the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the
legality and correctness of the order dated 26 August 2025 passed
by Respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the
Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. By the said order, the
application preferred by the petitioner Co-operative Housing
Society seeking grant of Deemed Conveyance in respect of the
property of the Society came to be rejected.

2.    The material on record indicates that pursuant to the
Commencement Certificate dated 13 September 2007 issued by
the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the building of the




                                  2
                                                       wp12078-2025-J.doc


petitioner Society was constructed on land bearing CTS Nos. 100,
101 and 103 to 107, situated at Kille Gaothan, Belapur, Navi
Mumbai.

3.    Upon    completion    of   construction,   the Navi     Mumbai
Municipal Corporation issued an Occupation Certificate dated 21
March 2009. A plain reading of the said Occupation Certificate
demonstrates that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had exhausted the
entire permissible Floor Space Index in respect of the aforesaid
land bearing CTS Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107. The sanctioned
building plan as it stood on the date of issuance of the Occupation
Certificate further substantiates that the entire FSI available on the
land bearing CTS Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107 had been fully
utilized by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

4.    It is not in dispute that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had sold the
majority of the flats even prior to the issuance of the Occupation
Certificate. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon them, in
terms of the statutory mandate under MOFA and more particularly
in view of the undertaking recorded in paragraph 27 of the
Agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA, to take necessary
steps to form a Co-operative Housing Society of the flat purchasers
and to execute a conveyance in favour of the petitioner Society
within the prescribed period. The Agreements executed by
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the individual purchasers,
who are now members of the petitioner Society, specifically
describe the property in the First Schedule as Tika No. 2, City
Survey Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107, admeasuring in aggregate
1479.10 square metres, situated at Village Shahabaz Belapur, Kille



                                  3
                                                      wp12078-2025-J.doc


Gaothan, Navi Mumbai. The description of the property is thus
clear and unambiguous.

5.   As Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 neither formed the Society
within the stipulated time nor executed the conveyance in its
favour, one of the members of the petitioner Society lodged a First
Information Report dated 13 March 2025 against Respondent Nos.
3 and 4 alleging commission of an offence under Section 13 of
MOFA. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 approached the Court
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belapur, Navi
Mumbai, and were granted conditional bail by order dated 16
April 2025, inter alia considering their age and status as senior
citizens. Subsequent to their release on bail, Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 preferred an appeal before the learned Joint Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Konkan Bhavan, under Section 152 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, assailing the registration
of the petitioner Society. The sequence of events, as set out above,
is relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the conduct of
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has caused prejudice to the members of
the Society and has resulted in continued uncertainty regarding
their title and peaceful enjoyment of the premises.

6.   In support of its application before Respondent No. 2, the
petitioner Society placed reliance upon the Architect’s Certificate.
A comparison of the Architect’s Certificate with the Agreements
executed under Section 4 of MOFA indicates that the Society
sought Deemed Conveyance strictly in respect of the same property
and area as described in the Agreements executed in favour of the
members. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an Affidavit in Reply



                                 4
                                                      wp12078-2025-J.doc


before Respondent No. 2 opposing the grant of Deemed
Conveyance and disputing the entitlement of the petitioner Society
to such relief. Upon consideration of the application submitted by
the petitioner Society and the Affidavit in Reply filed by
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Respondent No. 2, by the impugned
order dated 26 August 2025, rejected the application seeking
Deemed Conveyance.

7.   Learned    counsel    for   the   petitioner   submitted     that
Respondent No. 2 has exceeded the limits of jurisdiction while
passing the impugned order. According to him, the Competent
Authority was required to confine its scrutiny only to the
Agreement executed under Section 4 of MOFA and the Architect’s
Certificate along with supporting documents placed on record by
the petitioner Society. It is urged that any enquiry beyond these
documents amounts to travelling outside the statutory scope. He
further submitted that the authority to grant Deemed Conveyance
flows from Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act,
1963 read with the relevant Rules and Government Notifications.
The jurisdiction is attracted only when the promoter fails or
refuses to execute conveyance in favour of the Co-operative
Housing Society or association of flat purchasers despite a
statutory obligation. The proceedings under Section 11 are
summary in character. The Competent Authority is required to
undertake a prima facie verification of compliance, examine the
basic documents, ascertain that the applicant is a duly registered
society of flat purchasers, verify that the flats have been sold and
the property is liable to be conveyed, and confirm that the



                                 5
                                                        wp12078-2025-J.doc


promoter has failed to execute conveyance within the prescribed
period.

8.    Learned counsel submitted that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
have relied upon alleged minutes of meeting dated 27 March 2021
annexed to their Affidavit in Reply. The said minutes purport to
record that occupants or owners have no objection to construction
on adjacent open land. It is contended that the minutes contain
forged signatures and that several flat purchasers are not
signatories thereto. It is clarified that the application under Section
11 of MOFA is confined strictly to the property of the petitioner
Society, namely land bearing CTS Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107,
as reflected in the Commencement Certificate dated 13 September
2007 and Occupation Certificate dated 21 March 2009. The
petitioner asserts that it has no concern with adjacent properties
bearing CTS Nos. 102 and 1198. In support of the submission
regarding the requirement of informed consent, reliance is placed
on the decision of this Court in Madhuvihar Co-operative Housing
Society v. Jayantilal Investments reported in 2010 SCC OnLine
Bom 1526.

9.    Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. It is
contended that the registration of the petitioner Society under
Section 9 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has
been challenged by filing Appeal No. 08 of 2025 before the
Divisional Joint Registrar. The said appeal is pending and is closed
for orders. An order dated 19 May 2025 directing status quo has
been passed in those proceedings. It is therefore submitted that



                                   6
                                                               wp12078-2025-J.doc


until the appeal is finally decided, the application for Deemed
Conveyance and the present writ petition are premature and liable
to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is further submitted that if
the registration of the petitioner Society is ultimately cancelled,
the present proceedings would become infructuous since Deemed
Conveyance cannot be granted in favour of a Society that ceases to
exist in the eye of law. Learned counsel contended that if Deemed
Conveyance      is    granted   and       the   Society   is   subsequently
deregistered,    an    anomalous      situation     would      arise    where
conveyance stands executed in favour of a non-existent entity.
Such a situation would prejudice the landowners as well as flat
purchasers and adversely affect their proprietary rights and
interests in the immovable property. It is also submitted that the
impugned order dated 26 August 2025 passed by the Deputy
Registrar expressly grants liberty to the petitioner Society to file a
fresh application after final adjudication of the appeal challenging
its registration. According to the Respondents, the petitioner has
an alternate remedy available at an appropriate stage.

10.   Learned counsel submitted that the building known as
“Kartik Regency” comprises 28 flats. Out of these, only 16 flat
owners have formed the petitioner Society. The application for
Deemed Conveyance has thus been made without including the
remaining 12 flat owners. It is alleged that these 12 flat owners,
including the present Respondents, were deliberately excluded at
the time of formation and registration of the Society, and that the
Society was registered without their knowledge. It is further
submitted that the Respondents are owners of land bearing CTS



                                      7
                                                         wp12078-2025-J.doc


Nos. 100 to 107 and 1198 of Village Shahabaj, Kille Gaothan,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The existing building of the petitioner
stands constructed on parts of CTS Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107.
The Respondents are also owners of adjoining lands bearing CTS
Nos. 102 and 1198 admeasuring 57.7 square metres and 318
square   metres   respectively,   the   latter   being   subsequently
purchased. Development rights in respect of CTS Nos. 100, 101
and 103 to 107 were granted to M/s. Kartik Builder under
Development Agreement dated 25 April 2005 and Supplementary
Agreement dated 12 February 2008. The developer was entrusted
with formation of the Society and a Power of Attorney was
executed for that purpose. After completion of the petitioner’s
building, a balance portion of land remained adjacent to the
structure.

11.   It is stated that on 27 March 2021, prior to formation of the
petitioner Society, a meeting of flat purchasers and owners was
convened. At the said meeting, a majority resolved that a new
building would be constructed by Mr. Vijay Agre on adjacent open
land forming part of the property in question, and that a common
Co-operative Housing Society of the existing and new building
would thereafter be formed. It was also resolved that individual No
Objection Certificates would be granted for the proposed
construction and that members of the existing building would pay
maintenance and property tax dues to Respondent No. 3, who had
till then paid such dues on their behalf. According to the
Respondents, the said meeting was attended by flat owners
including members of the petitioner Society. The minutes were



                                  8
                                                      wp12078-2025-J.doc


drawn up by the flat purchasers themselves and record that the
Co-operative Society would be formed after construction of the
adjoining building and that all members would become part of the
proposed Society.

12.   It is submitted that the plan annexed to the additional
affidavit of Respondent No. 4 dated 20 January 2026 indicates that
the proposed construction is partly on CTS Nos. 100 and 101,
where part of the existing building stands, and partly on CTS Nos.
1198 and 102 which are adjoining lands. For this reason, express
consents and No Objection Certificates of the existing flat
purchasers were obtained.

13.   Learned counsel submitted that the minutes dated 27 March
2021 specifically record that flat purchasers granted consent for
construction on the open portion of adjacent land on which the
existing building stands. It is contended that if the proposed
construction were confined only to CTS Nos. 102 and 1198, which
are newly acquired plots, there would have been no occasion to
obtain consent from flat owners of the existing building. It is thus
argued that the flat purchasers were aware of the proposed
construction on the land in question. It is further submitted that
irrevocable consents for construction were executed by a majority
of flat owners of the existing building.

14.   Learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner has filed
Writ Petition No. 5612 of 2025 challenging the Commencement
Certificate and sanctioned plans for further construction. No
interim or ad interim relief has been granted in that petition. The




                                  9
                                                        wp12078-2025-J.doc


same plan annexed to the affidavit dated 20 January 2026 has
been challenged in those proceedings. It is submitted that pursuant
to    permissions   granted    by    the   Navi   Mumbai    Municipal
Corporation, the Respondents have commenced construction on
the balance portion of land, partly situated on CTS Nos. 100, 101
and 103 to 107 and partly on adjoining lands in which the
petitioner Society has no right, title or interest. On the aforesaid
grounds, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the
writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

       Reasons and analysis:

15.    Section 11 of MOFA is meant to give flat purchasers a
workable remedy. Once a promoter has sold flats and the
purchasers have come together to form a society, the promoter
cannot indefinitely hold on to the title of the land and building.
The statute therefore creates a mechanism where, if the promoter
fails or refuses to execute conveyance, the society can approach
the Competent Authority and seek what is called deemed
conveyance.

16.    At the initial stage, the Competent Authority is not expected
to conduct a detailed trial as if it were deciding a civil suit for
declaration of title. The enquiry is limited. The Authority must see
whether the basic statutory conditions are satisfied on the face of
the record. This involves checking whether valid Agreements
under Section 4 of MOFA exist between the promoter and flat
purchasers. It must identify the property described in those
Agreements and verify that the flats have in fact been sold. The




                                    10
                                                      wp12078-2025-J.doc


Authority must also look at documents such as the Architect’s
Certificate which confirm the built area and the extent of
development. Above all, it must ascertain whether the promoter
has failed to execute conveyance within the time contemplated by
law.

17.    These are threshold requirements. If these elements are
shown from the documents placed on record, the remedy under
Section 11 is attracted. The process is summary in nature because
the legislature did not intend flat purchasers to be driven to
lengthy civil litigation merely to obtain what the promoter had
already promised in writing. At the same time, the Authority
cannot shut its eyes to the record. It must examine the documents
carefully, but only to the extent necessary to see whether a prima
facie case exists. It is not required to decide complex questions of
title or to record oral evidence unless the material itself compels
such an exercise.

18.    For that reason, the argument that Respondent No.2
exceeded jurisdiction by looking at material beyond the Section 4
Agreements and the Architect’s Certificate cannot be accepted in
the absolute terms in which it is canvassed. While the Agreements
and Architect’s Certificate form the backbone of a Section 11
application, they are not the only documents that may be relevant.
If the respondents place on record minutes of meetings, alleged
consents, sanctioned plans or development proposals, and if those
documents directly relate to the description of the land or to the
promoter’s obligations, the Competent Authority is entitled to look
at them. It may examine such documents for a limited purpose. It



                                 11
                                                        wp12078-2025-J.doc


may assess whether they cast doubt on the identity of the property
or on the applicant’s entitlement.

19.   What the Authority cannot do is convert a summary
proceeding into a full scale trial of disputed title. It cannot embark
upon detailed fact finding as if it were adjudicating a civil suit. But
it can certainly take note of relevant documents placed before it
and consider whether, despite those documents, the statutory
conditions for deemed conveyance stand satisfied. Considering
supporting material for this limited purpose does not amount to
travelling beyond jurisdiction. It remains within the statutory
framework so long as the Authority confines itself to deciding
whether a prima facie entitlement under Section 11 is made out.

20.   In that view, a balanced approach is required. The
Competent Authority must neither restrict itself mechanically to
two documents nor enlarge the enquiry into a roving investigation.
It must examine the record as a whole, but only to the extent
necessary to determine whether the promoter has failed in its
statutory duty and whether the society has made out a case for
deemed conveyance on the face of the documents.

21.   The starting point has to be the documents which create
rights between the parties. The Agreements executed under
Section 4 of MOFA are not informal papers. They are statutory
agreements entered into by the promoter with each flat purchaser.
In every one of these Agreements, the property is clearly described.
The description is consistent. It refers to Tika No. 2, City Survey
Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107. The total area is stated as 1479.10




                                  12
                                                        wp12078-2025-J.doc


square metres. There is no ambiguity in this recital. The land is
identified by survey numbers and by total measurement.

22.   When one turns to the Commencement Certificate dated 13
September 2007, the same survey numbers are reflected. The
municipal authority permitted construction on that very land.
Thereafter, the Occupation Certificate dated 21 March 2009 was
issued in respect of the completed building standing on those
survey numbers. These are not private documents. They are
statutory certificates issued by a public authority in discharge of its
official functions. They carry weight. They confirm that the
building was constructed and occupied on the land described
therein.

23.   The Architect’s Certificate placed on record by the petitioner
also aligns with these documents. It certifies the built area and the
extent of development. More importantly, it corresponds to the
area mentioned in the Agreements. There is no attempt to inflate
the measurement or to add adjoining plots. The Architect’s
Certificate does not travel beyond what is recorded in the
Agreements and municipal records.

24.   When these documents are read together, a clear picture
emerges. The identity of the property is certain. The area is
definite. The land for which Deemed Conveyance is sought
measures 1479.10 square metres and comprises CTS Nos. 100, 101
and 103 to 107. The petitioner has not claimed anything outside
this description. There is no material on record to suggest that the
petitioner is attempting to include CTS Nos. 102 or 1198 or any




                                  13
                                                       wp12078-2025-J.doc


other adjoining land within the present application.

25.   In proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA, the Competent
Authority is required to be satisfied about the identity of the land
and the extent of area for which conveyance is sought. That
requirement stands fulfilled here. The Agreements identify the
land. The Commencement and Occupation Certificates corroborate
that identification. The Architect’s Certificate confirms the built
area. The documents speak in one voice.

26.   On the basis of this record, the petitioner has established, at
least prima facie, that the suit property measures 1479.10 square
metres and that its claim for Deemed Conveyance is confined
strictly to that area. This finding answers the submission that the
petitioner is seeking conveyance of an undefined or larger tract of
land. The record does not support such an apprehension. The
claim is precise. It is rooted in the Agreements and supported by
statutory certificates. That is sufficient for the purpose of Section
11 proceedings.

27.   It is undisputed that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 sold a majority
of flats before issuance of the Occupation Certificate. The
Agreements recorded the obligation to form the society and to
execute conveyance in favour of the society once formed. The case
law requires performance of these obligations by the promoter.
Where the promoter fails to perform, Section 11 remedy
crystallises. The record shows that despite sale of flats and the
obligation recorded in the Agreements, no conveyance was
executed in favour of the society within the prescribed period. The




                                 14
                                                       wp12078-2025-J.doc


lodging of FIR under Section 13 MOFA by a member underscores
the non-performance allegation. The promoter’s conditional bail or
their age is irrelevant to the statutory obligation. In the face of
these facts a statutory remedy under Section 11 is triggered.

28.   The next limb of the defence rests upon the alleged minutes
of meeting dated 27 March 2021. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
contend that in that meeting the flat purchasers gave consent for
further development and recorded that they had no objection to
construction on the adjacent open land. The petitioner disputes the
very foundation of this document. It is stated that several
signatures appearing on the minutes are forged and that many flat
purchasers never attended such meeting. It is also pointed out that
some members whose names are shown as present deny
participation altogether. At this stage, the Court is not conducting a
trial on the authenticity of signatures.

29.   Even assuming for a moment that some meeting did take
place, the contents of the minutes must be read carefully. The
minutes refer to proposed construction on adjoining portions and
to certain arrangements for future development. They do not
contain any clear and specific resolution stating that the flat
purchasers waive their right to obtain conveyance of the land
described in their Agreements. There is no categorical statement
that the promoter is relieved of his obligation to execute
conveyance in favour of the society. The Agreements under Section
4 record a clear promise. The promoter agreed to form the society
and to convey the land. Such a promise cannot be lightly brushed
aside on the strength of a subsequent informal meeting, especially



                                  15
                                                       wp12078-2025-J.doc


when the authenticity of that meeting itself is in dispute.

30.   The Court must also bear in mind the nature of rights
involved. The right to conveyance flows from statute. It is not a
mere personal arrangement. Section 11 of MOFA creates a remedy
to enforce that obligation. If promoters were permitted to rely on
loosely worded minutes of meetings to defeat statutory rights, the
entire scheme of the Act would be rendered uncertain. Therefore,
unless the document clearly establishes a conscious and lawful
surrender of rights, it cannot be treated as conclusive.

31.   On the material placed before this Court, the minutes of 27
March 2021 do not displace the petitioner’s prima facie
entitlement. They neither override the Agreements nor nullify the
statutory obligation to convey. As the record stands, the minutes
do not defeat the claim for deemed conveyance.

32.   The Agreements executed under Section 4 are binding
contracts supported by statutory mandate. They specify the land
and record the promoter’s duty to convey. Such contractual and
statutory obligations cannot be unilaterally altered by subsequent
consents, whether informal or formal, unless there is a legally valid
modification accepted by all concerned and consistent with law. A
promoter cannot say that because some purchasers signed NOCs
for construction, the obligation to convey the original land
disappears. Development proposals and conveyance obligations
operate in different spheres. The consents relied upon by the
respondents appear to relate to proposed construction on adjacent
or open portions. They do not expressly state that the flat




                                  16
                                                     wp12078-2025-J.doc


purchasers give up their right to obtain conveyance of 1479.10
square metres as described in the Agreements and confirmed by
the Commencement and Occupation Certificates.

33.   The statutory record continues to recognise the building as
standing on CTS Nos. 100, 101 and 103 to 107. The Agreements
continue to bind the promoter. No registered document has been
produced which lawfully alters the extent of land to be conveyed.
In these circumstances, the alleged consents and NOCs do not
operate to extinguish or dilute the petitioner’s statutory right to
seek deemed conveyance. They may have relevance in separate
proceedings concerning development, but they cannot override the
clear mandate of MOFA. For these reasons, neither the minutes of
meeting nor the consents relied upon by the respondents can stand
in the way of granting deemed conveyance on the present record.

34.   Respondents complain that only 16 of 28 flat owners formed
the petitioner society and that 12 flat owners were excluded. The
Co-operative Societies Act and the rules prescribe the mode of
registration and the remedy against wrongful registration. The
existence of an appeal under Section 152 challenging registration
cannot per se render the society non-existent until the appeal is
decided. Registration of a society is prima facie valid and the
society may invoke its statutory rights unless and until the
competent authority cancels registration. The Divisional Joint
Registrar’s status quo order of 19 May 2025 is not an order of
cancellation. It preserves the position pending adjudication. In
these circumstances the petitioner society cannot be treated as
non-existent simply because an appeal is pending. To hold



                                17
                                                       wp12078-2025-J.doc


otherwise would allow promoters to frustrate statutory remedies
by initiating collateral proceedings. The correct approach is to
treat the society’s registration as valid for present purposes subject
to the result of the appellate proceedings. If the registration is
ultimately set aside, appropriate consequences will follow. That
contingency does not justify refusal of Deemed Conveyance where
the statutory prerequisites are otherwise satisfied.

35.   Respondents rely on sanctioned plans and permissions
granted by NMMC for further construction which they say include
parts of CTS Nos.100 and 101. The petitioner has itself filed Writ
Petition No.5612 of 2025 challenging the commencement
certificate and sanctioned plans for such further construction. No
interim relief was granted in that writ. The existence of municipal
permissions does not resolve the rival claims of title and the
statutory obligation to convey. Where the Agreements, the
Commencement Certificate and the Occupation Certificate identify
the land as belonging to the purchasers and where the promoter
has failed to convey, the statutory remedy under Section 11
remains available. The sanctioned plans for new construction
require separate adjudication. They cannot be allowed to frustrate
a clear statutory remedy which arises out of the promoter’s failure
to execute conveyance.

36.   On the record before this Court the petitioner has established
the essential facts which invoke Section 11. The Agreements
identify the property and area of 1479.10 sq m. The Architect’s
Certificate corroborates the built area. The Occupation Certificate
and Commencement Certificate are on record. The promoter has



                                  18
                                                            wp12078-2025-J.doc


sold flats and has not executed conveyance in favour of the society.
The Competent Authority erred in rejecting the application for
Deemed Conveyance on the materials placed before it. The
petitioner is therefore entitled to relief.

37.   For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed.

38.   The impugned order dated 26 August 2025 passed by
Respondent No.2 under Section 11 of MOFA is set aside to the
extent   it   rejects   the   petitioner’s    application   for    Deemed
Conveyance for the area described in the Agreements and in the
Commencement and Occupation Certificates, namely 1479.10
square metres comprised in Tika No.2, City Survey Nos. 100, 101
and 103 to 107, Village Shahabaz Belapur, Kille Gaothan, Navi
Mumbai.

39.   Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law under Section 11 of MOFA, to record the
petitioner Society’s entitlement to Deemed Conveyance for
1479.10 sq m and to issue necessary certificates and directions
enabling execution and registration of conveyance in favour of the
petitioner Society.

40.   Respondent No.2 shall complete the said exercise and issue
the consequential order and certificate within six weeks from the
date of receipt of this judgment.

41.   No order as to costs.

42.   At this stage, Mr. Kanetkar, learned Advocate for respondent
Nos.3 and 4 seeks stay of the Judgment and Order. However, for




                                    19
                                                 wp12078-2025-J.doc


the reasons recorded in this Judgment, the request for stay is
rejected.


                                        (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                              20