M/S. ARIHANT DEVELOPERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                      1-wp-1989-2022.doc


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

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1989 OF 2022

M/s. Arihant Developers                     … Petitioner
           V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.             … Respondents

Mr. Vikram Chavan a/w Sejal i/b M/s. C K Legal, for
the Petitioner.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP, for the State – Respondent
Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Tukaram Shendge i/b Amit Sale, for Respondent
No.3.



                            CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                            DATED      : FEBRUARY 2, 2026
P.C.:

1.      The challenge in the present petition arises out of an order
passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers under
Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of
the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer)
Act, 1963 (“MOFA”).

2.      The petitioner–developer has challenged the impugned order
by placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 22 June
2018. According to the petitioner, since construction of the entire
project is still pending, deemed conveyance in respect of a specific
portion of the project could not have been granted.




                                  1
                                                        1-wp-1989-2022.doc


3.    Moreover, a civil suit between the parties in relation to
sanctioned plan and the pending construction is already pending
adjudication before the District and Sessions Court, Pune.

4.    The Division Bench of this Court in Zainul Abedin Yusufali
Massawala and others versus Competent Authority (2016 SCC
OnLine Bom 6028) has explained the nature and effect of an order
under Section 11 of the MOFA Act. The Court has held that such
an order results in conveyance of only those rights which the
promoter actually holds in the land and building. If the promoter
considers that the order conveys a larger extent of land or rights
than what the purchasers are entitled to, the proper course is to
institute a civil suit. The civil court will have full jurisdiction to
examine the title documents, evidence regarding extent of land,
and all connected issues. The findings recorded by the Competent
Authority under Section 11 will not bind the civil court. Thus, the
civil rights of the promoter remain intact. They can seek full
adjudication before the competent civil court without any
prejudice arising from the deemed conveyance order.

5.    This approach has been consistently followed by this Court
in several decisions. In Shimmering Heights CHSL and others
versus State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2016
decided on 6 April 2016), in P.R. Enterprises and others versus
Competent Authority (Writ Petition No. 11251 of 2016 decided on
27 November 2018), and in Mehboob Ali Humza and others versus
District Sub Registrar (3), Mumbai and others (Writ Petition No.
3129 of 2016 decided on 24 June 2016) , the Court has reiterated
that writ jurisdiction is not intended for resolution of disputes



                                  2
                                                      1-wp-1989-2022.doc


concerning title, extent of land, development rights, or ownership
claims. Such matters demand appreciation of documentary
evidence, oral testimony, and factual determination. Only a civil
court is equipped to undertake such an exercise. The writ court
does not conduct a mini trial. Therefore, promoters or landowners
who dispute the quantum of land or nature of rights conveyed
must seek their remedies through a civil suit.

6.    It must also be noted that the Competent Authority
exercising powers under Section 11 of the MOFA Act has a limited
mandate. The Authority examines the registered agreements,
sanctioned plans, and related records. It ensures that the
conveyance is executed in accordance with the statutory scheme. It
does not adjudicate upon complex disputes concerning title. It
does not decide whether the society has claimed more land than
what it can legitimately claim. It does not settle ownership
disputes between rival claimants. These questions fall within the
domain of the civil court. Hence, if the petitioners believe that
respondent No. 3 has claimed more land than what it is entitled to,
the appropriate remedy is to institute civil proceedings rather than
invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

7.    For these reasons, this Court has consistently exercised
restraint in interfering with deemed conveyance orders at the
instance of promoters or landowners. Once it is clarified that the
observations and findings recorded in the deemed conveyance
order do not operate as res judicata in future civil proceedings,
there is no legal prejudice caused to the promoters or landowners.
Their rights under civil law remain fully intact. They retain the



                                 3
                                                         1-wp-1989-2022.doc


liberty to challenge the society’s claim before the civil court. Their
remedies remain unaffected.

8.    Hence, all contentions raised by the parties regarding the
validity of the impugned order, subject to the decision of Special
Civil Suit No. 1316 of 2021 or independent suit if petitioner
intends so, are kept open to be agitated in the said suit.

9.    The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

10.   There shall no order as to costs.


                                              (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4