SRISHTI SECTOR II CO-OP HSG SOCIETY FEDERATION LTD THROU. ITS CHAIRMAN CHANDRAKANT M DESHPANDEversusTHE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OP SOCIETIES AND ORS

                                                                           12-wp15546-2024.doc


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

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.15546 OF 2024

ATUL                  Srishti Sector II Coop.. Housing Society
GANESH
KULKARNI              Federation Limited, through Chairman
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
                      Chandrakant M. Deshpande                    … Petitioner
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.02.23
10:45:18 +0530
                                  V/s.
                      The District Deputy Registrar, Coop.
                      Societies & Ors.                            … Respondents

                      Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinayak R.
                      Patil and Mr. Rajesh K. Shinde for the petitioner.
                      Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for respondent No.1-State.
                      Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Saket Mone, and Mr.
                      Raghav Taneja Mr. Kakarand Savant for respondent
                      No.12.


                                                  CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED     : FEBRUARY 17, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      By the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
                      Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Judgment and
                      Order dated 6 July 2023 passed by the District Deputy Registrar,
                      Cooperative Societies, Thane, acting as the Competent Authority
                      (Respondent No.1) under Section 5A of the Maharashtra
                      Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction,
                      Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short, “MOFA”), in
                      Deemed Conveyance Application No.177 of 2023.




                                                        1
                                                           12-wp15546-2024.doc


2.    The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as
follows. The petitioner is a registered Housing Society Federation
comprising twelve housing societies, registered under Section 10
of MOFA, 1963. The office of the petitioner Federation is situated
at Sector No.2, Srishti Complex, Mira Bhayandar, District Thane.

3.    The subject matter of the deemed conveyance proceedings
concerns land bearing old Survey Nos.232, 233, 234, 235 and
240/2, corresponding to new Survey Nos.65, 66, 67, 68 and 64/2,
admeasuring approximately 26,946 square meters, situated at
Penkarpada (Mire), Taluka and District Thane. Respondent No.2 is
the promoter and developer, while Respondent No.3 is the owner
of the said land. Respondent No.2 undertook development of a
project known as “Srishti Complex”, consisting of five separate
sectors. In so far as the petitioner’s sector is concerned, all
constituent societies have obtained occupation certificates.

4.    The societies, associations and federations situated in Sectors
Nos.1, 3 and 4 have already obtained deemed conveyance
pursuant to orders dated 11 March 2014 and 27 March 2023.
Respondent No.2 has also executed conveyance deeds in favour of
the societies situated in Sector No.4. Sector No.5-A has not applied
for   deemed    conveyance.   The petitioner         addressed several
communications to Respondent No.2 seeking execution of the
conveyance deed. Although Respondent No.2 initially expressed
willingness to execute conveyance, no effective steps were taken
thereafter.   Consequently,   the       petitioner   instituted    Deemed
Conveyance Application No.177 of 2023 before Respondent No.1
seeking grant of deemed conveyance.



                                    2
                                                    12-wp15546-2024.doc


5.    Upon receipt of the application, Respondent No.1 issued
notices to Respondent Nos.2 and 3. As they failed to appear, the
proceedings were initially closed for orders. Subsequently,
Respondent No.2 filed an application seeking an opportunity of
hearing, which was allowed. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 filed its
reply and written submissions on record.

6.    By order dated 6 July 2023, Respondent No.1 rejected the
application for deemed conveyance primarily on the grounds that
copies of the memorandum and bye-laws were not annexed; that
Srishti Complex constitutes an integrated and comprehensive
development over the entire land parcel and the development is
still ongoing; that grant of unilateral conveyance in favour of a
separate society would result in unequal distribution of Floor
Space Index (FSI); and that the application for deemed
conveyance was premature. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7.    Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that Srishti Complex comprises five distinct
sectors and that Respondent No.2 has undertaken development of
each sector independently. He pointed out that Respondent No.2
has voluntarily executed conveyance in favour of the societies
situated in Sector No.4, while the societies in Sectors Nos.1 and 3
have obtained deemed conveyance through orders passed by the
Competent Authority. It was contended that non-production of the
copy of bye-laws by the applicant Federation cannot constitute a
valid legal ground for rejection of the application for deemed
conveyance. Referring to Section 10 of MOFA, he submitted that



                                   3
                                                       12-wp15546-2024.doc


the statutory requirement is execution of conveyance in favour of
an organisation formed by the purchasers. According to him, the
purchasers formed individual societies in respect of their buildings,
and those societies thereafter constituted the petitioner Federation.
He further submitted that Respondent No.2, being an outsider to
the internal structure of the societies, has no locus to question the
status or constitution of the Federation, as the same concerns
internal arrangements amongst the societies and their members,
who are the beneficiaries of the conveyance.

8.    Addressing the second ground recorded by the Competent
Authority, namely that the layout is not fully developed, learned
Senior   Counsel   submitted    that   such    reasoning    is   legally
unsustainable.   He   argued   that    the    obligation   to    execute
conveyance arises within four months from the date of registration
of the society, and the petitioner having been registered on 28
August 2000, the statutory duty had long crystallised. He further
submitted that the correspondence placed on record demonstrates
that Respondent No.2 itself dealt with the petitioner as an
Association. Drawing attention to Clause 1 of the agreement
executed under Section 4 of MOFA, he submitted that Respondent
No.2 agreed to construct the building in phased development on
the portion of land falling in Sector No.2, as shown in the layout
plan annexed thereto. According to him, the remaining sectors
have already been developed. Reliance was also placed on Clause
5 of the agreement, which stipulates that the developer shall
execute conveyance in favour of the corporate body to be formed
by the purchasers of tenements in the building. It was submitted



                                  4
                                                    12-wp15546-2024.doc


that the petitioner Federation, being the body ultimately
constituted by such purchasers through their societies, is entitled
to seek conveyance in terms of the said clause.

9.    Inviting attention to Clause 34(ii) of the agreement, learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the promoter had contemplated
formation of an apex society comprising members of the
constituent societies, and that such apex body was intended to
administer the common areas. He further relied upon the
Architect’s Certificate to contend that, having regard to the
sanctioned plan and the extent of development, the petitioner
Federation is entitled to conveyance of land admeasuring 26,946
square meters.

10.   Per contra, Mr. Kanade, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2, supported the impugned order and submitted
that in the absence of the memorandum and bye-laws, the
Competent Authority was justified in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner Federation. He contended that Clause 5 of the
agreement under Section 4 specifically contemplates execution of
conveyance in favour of a corporate body formed by purchasers of
tenements in the concerned building, and does not envisage
conveyance in favour of a Federation. According to him, the
Competent Authority rightly declined deemed conveyance in
favour of the petitioner in the absence of requisite foundational
documents. He further submitted that the Architect’s Certificate
relied upon by the petitioner is not in conformity with legal
requirements.




                                 5
                                                      12-wp15546-2024.doc


11.   Referring to Exhibit B-II, being the layout plan of Sector
No.2, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the area
earmarked as “shopping” forms part of the layout annexed to the
agreement executed under Section 4 of MOFA and was specifically
reserved by Respondent No.2 for future development. On that
basis, it was argued that deemed conveyance of the entire layout,
as sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted.

12.   In rejoinder, Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the contention relating to the area
designated as “shopping” was never raised before the Competent
Authority in the reply filed by Respondent No.2 and, therefore,
cannot be permitted to be urged for the first time at this stage. He
further submitted that Section 11 of MOFA mandates transfer of
the entire right, title and interest of the promoter in favour of the
association of purchasers. According to him, unless the agreement
or sanctioned plan specifically reserves any portion of the property
in favour of the promoter, no residual right can be claimed by the
promoter. Consequently, it was argued that the promoter is under a
legal obligation to convey the entire area in favour of the
association of purchasers, and the petitioner is entitled to
conveyance of the full extent of land claimed in the application.

13.   I have considered the pleadings, the impugned order, the
material placed on record, and the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties. The controversy lies in a narrow compass.
The question is whether the Competent Authority was justified in
rejecting the application for deemed conveyance filed by the
petitioner Federation, and whether the reasons recorded in the



                                  6
                                                      12-wp15546-2024.doc


impugned order can be sustained in law.

14.   At the outset, it is necessary to notice the undisputed factual
position. The project known as Srishti Complex consists of five
sectors. The developer, Respondent No.2, has already executed
conveyance in favour of societies situated in Sector No.4. The
societies in Sectors Nos.1 and 3 have obtained deemed conveyance
through orders of the Competent Authority. It is therefore clear
that conveyance, whether voluntary or deemed, has already taken
place in respect of other sectors forming part of the same overall
development. This factual circumstance has an important bearing
while examining the objection that the development is incomplete
or that conveyance at this stage would disturb planning or
distribution of development potential.

15.   The first ground on which the application came to be
rejected is non-production of memorandum and bye-laws of the
petitioner Federation. In my view, this reason cannot be accepted
as a legally sustainable ground to deny deemed conveyance. The
scheme of MOFA, particularly Sections 10 and 11, places a
statutory obligation upon the promoter to convey title in favour of
an organisation formed by flat purchasers. The emphasis of the
statute is on substance and not on technical form. The material on
record shows that purchasers formed individual societies, and
those societies in turn constituted the petitioner Federation. The
developer itself has corresponded with the petitioner as a
representative body of the societies. Once the existence of an
organisation representing purchasers is not in dispute, rejection
solely on the basis of non-filing of bye-laws amounts to elevating a



                                 7
                                                            12-wp15546-2024.doc


procedural requirement above the statutory right created in favour
of flat purchasers.

16.   The submission of Respondent No.2 that conveyance can
only be in favour of a society and not a federation also does not
merit acceptance in the facts of the present case. Clause 5 of the
agreement under Section 4 refers to execution of conveyance in
favour of a corporate body to be formed by purchasers. The
language employed is broad. It does not restrict the corporate body
to a single form, nor does it prohibit formation of an apex or
federation structure. Clause 34(ii), relied upon by the petitioner,
shows that the promoter itself contemplated formation of an apex
body for administration of common areas. When the contractual
framework itself envisages an apex structure, it is not open for the
promoter to later contend that such a body cannot receive
conveyance. The objection to the locus or structure of the
petitioner therefore cannot be sustained.

17.   The second reason recorded by the Competent Authority is
that the layout is not fully developed and that grant of conveyance
would be premature. This reasoning also fails on a plain reading of
the statutory provisions. The obligation to execute conveyance
under MOFA arises within a fixed period from formation of the
society. The petitioner Federation stands registered since 28 August
2000. The statutory duty to convey title cannot be postponed
indefinitely on the ground that the promoter intends to continue
development elsewhere. If such reasoning is accepted, the
promoter would be able to delay conveyance endlessly by merely
asserting   future    plans.   The       law   does   not    permit      such



                                     8
                                                      12-wp15546-2024.doc


postponement. The record further shows that other sectors have
already been developed and conveyed. Therefore, the plea of
incompleteness lacks factual as well as legal foundation.

18.   The contention regarding unequal distribution of FSI is
equally unsustainable. Deemed conveyance proceedings are not
intended to re-open planning issues or commercial interests of the
promoter. The Competent Authority is required to examine
whether purchasers are entitled to conveyance of the land and
building forming part of their development. Once the promoter has
created independent sectors, granted occupation certificates, and
allowed formation of societies, the rights of purchasers crystallise.
Internal calculations of development potential cannot defeat a
statutory right.

19.   Respondent No.2 also questioned the Architect’s Certificate
produced by the petitioner. However, no substantial material has
been placed to demonstrate that the certificate is legally invalid or
contrary to sanctioned plans. Mere assertion that it is not in
accordance with law, without specific defect being pointed out,
cannot justify rejection of the application. On the contrary, the
certificate supports the petitioner’s claim regarding the area
appurtenant to the development.

20.   The argument advanced by Respondent No.2 based on the
area marked as “shopping” in the layout also does not carry the
matter further. Firstly, this objection was not raised before the
Competent Authority in the reply and appears to have been urged
subsequently. Secondly, under Section 11 of MOFA, the promoter is




                                  9
                                                      12-wp15546-2024.doc


required to transfer all right, title and interest in the land and
building in favour of the association of purchasers, unless a specific
and clear reservation is shown in the agreement or sanctioned
plan. No such express reservation, preserving absolute rights of the
promoter over the said area, has been demonstrated. A general
reference in the layout cannot by itself defeat the statutory
mandate. The promoter cannot retain portions of the property by
implication when the law requires complete transfer of title to the
purchasers’ body.

21.   The submission of the petitioner that the promoter, being an
outsider, cannot question internal arrangements of societies and
federation also deserves acceptance to a limited extent. The
promoter’s concern in deemed conveyance proceedings is confined
to identifying the property and ensuring that conveyance is
granted to the legitimate body representing purchasers. Once that
representative character is established, the promoter cannot resist
conveyance by questioning internal organisational structure.

22.   When the impugned order is examined in this overall
background, it becomes evident that the Competent Authority has
proceeded on technical and extraneous considerations rather than
on the statutory object of MOFA. The Act is a beneficial legislation
enacted to protect flat purchasers from delay and denial of
conveyance. The authority was required to adopt a purposive
approach. Instead, the application was rejected on grounds that
neither go to the root of entitlement nor have legal support under
the Act.




                                 10
                                                      12-wp15546-2024.doc


23.   For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 6 July 2023
cannot be sustained. The petitioner has established that it
represents the purchasers through their societies, that the statutory
obligation to convey has long matured, and that the grounds relied
upon by the Competent Authority are legally untenable. The
petition therefore deserves to be allowed.

24.   Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 6 July 2023 passed by the District Deputy Registrar
and Competent Authority in Deemed Conveyance Application
No.177 of 2023 is set aside. The application for deemed
conveyance stands allowed.

25.   Respondent No.1 shall proceed to issue the deemed
conveyance certificate and complete all consequential steps in
accordance with law within four weeks from the date of
production of this order.

26.   All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                 11