The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a real estate developer challenging a deemed conveyance granted to a housing society, holding that a promoter cannot rely on private contractual clauses to avoid statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).
Justice Amit Borkar ruled that once construction is completed and the housing society is formed, the promoter is legally bound to transfer the property to the society, except to the extent permitted under sanctioned plans.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a petition filed by Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd., the promoter and owner of the property. The developer challenged an order passed by the Competent Authority granting deemed conveyance of the land and building in favour of a cooperative housing society formed by flat purchasers.
The developer argued that it was always ready to execute the conveyance but subject to certain contractual rights reserved in the sale agreements with flat buyers. According to the petitioner, clauses in the agreements preserved specific rights for the promoter, including a right of way and a reservation of balance Floor Space Index (FSI).
The petitioner contended that by directing transfer of the entire property, the authority had exceeded the terms of the agreement.
Another argument raised was procedural. The developer claimed that when the society applied for deemed conveyance, its Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer were allegedly disqualified. Therefore, the application itself was said to be unauthorized and unsupported by a valid resolution of the society.
Society’s Stand
The housing society opposed the petition, arguing that the developer had failed to execute the conveyance within the statutory time, forcing the society to seek relief under MOFA.
Counsel for the society pointed out that the society had been registered in April 2007 and consisted of three completed buildings. Occupation certificates had already been issued years earlier, indicating that the project had been completed.
It was further argued that the available FSI had already been fully utilized during construction, as confirmed by an architect’s certificate dated February 1, 2007.
The society also maintained that objections relating to the internal functioning of the society could not be raised by the developer, who was essentially an outsider to its internal governance.
Court’s Observations
The High Court emphasized that the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act is a welfare legislation designed to protect flat purchasers who invest their savings in residential properties.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court: RTI Applicant Can Know Marks of Other Candidates but Not Get Their
“The statute casts a clear obligation on the promoter to execute a conveyance in favour of the society within the prescribed time,” the court observed.
Justice Borkar clarified that Section 11 of MOFA does not create a new right but merely enforces an existing statutory duty of the promoter to transfer the land and building to the society once the project is complete.
The court rejected the developer’s reliance on clauses reserving additional FSI or development rights.
“The promoter cannot rely upon private contractual language to defeat a public law obligation imposed by MOFA,” the bench said.
The judge also noted that the right to additional FSI, if any, must arise from sanctioned plans and development control regulations, not from unilateral clauses inserted in agreements with flat purchasers.
On Internal Disputes Within the Society
Addressing the argument regarding alleged disqualification of society office bearers, the court held that such issues relate to internal management of the society and cannot invalidate a statutory claim for conveyance.
The court said that promoters cannot rely on internal disputes within a society to avoid transferring property.
“The law does not permit a promoter to rely upon internal quarrels within the society as a shield against his own statutory obligation,” the court stated.
Read also:- Supreme Court Seeks Expert Input to Define ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, Orders Status Quo on
It further noted that the promoter had failed to demonstrate that the application for deemed conveyance was fraudulent or filed by an unrelated person.
Court’s Decision
After examining the sanctioned plans, occupation certificates and architectural records, the court concluded that the available FSI had already been fully consumed and the buildings had been completed.
Therefore, there was no lawful basis for the promoter to retain ownership of the land or claim additional development rights.
Holding that the Competent Authority had acted within its statutory powers, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The court also clarified that disagreement with the outcome of the proceedings does not amount to a jurisdictional error warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4542 of 2024
Decision Date: 11 February 2026
