In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the scope of judicial intervention in matters pertaining to deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). The Court emphasized that High Courts should refrain from interfering with orders granting deemed conveyance unless such orders are manifestly illegal. This decision reinforces the legislative intent of MOFA to protect the interests of flat purchasers and streamline the process of property conveyance.
The case involved an appeal against the Bombay High Court's refusal to interfere with an order passed by the competent authority under Section 11(4) of MOFA. The appellant, a developer, challenged the grant of deemed conveyance to a cooperative housing society formed by flat owners who had purchased units but had not received formal conveyance of the property. The Supreme Court, upholding the High Court's decision, highlighted the welfare-oriented nature of MOFA, designed to address malpractices by developers and ensure that flat purchasers receive their rightful ownership.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, stated that MOFA is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect home buyers, considering the housing shortage in urban areas and the increasing malpractices by developers. The provisions of Section 11 are specifically for the benefit of flat purchasers. Therefore, in writ jurisdiction, courts should not interfere with orders granting deemed conveyance under Section 11(4) unless the order is manifestly illegal. The rationale is that aggrieved parties still have the remedy to file a civil suit, and substantial justice is achieved by protecting the rights of all parties involved.
The Court further elaborated that the competent authority under MOFA exercises quasi-judicial powers while dealing with applications under Section 11(3). However, these proceedings are of a summary nature, focusing on the administrative aspects of conveyance rather than adjudicating complex title disputes. The competent authority's role is to facilitate the transfer of property rights from the promoter to the housing society when the promoter fails to do so, without delving into intricate legal disputes that are better suited for civil courts.
This judgment aligns with previous rulings by the Bombay High Court, which have consistently held that the competent authority's jurisdiction is limited to administrative functions under MOFA. For instance, in the case of New Manoday Co-operative Housing Society, the High Court ruled that the competent authority is bound to grant deemed conveyance if the flat purchase agreement contains an obligation on the part of the promoter to convey his rights to the society. The Court emphasized that the competent authority should not entertain title disputes between original owners and promoters, as such matters fall outside its purview.
Additionally, the Bombay High Court has clarified that the pendency of a lawsuit over the title of land cannot be grounds to deregister a housing society under MOFA. In a case involving the New Manoday Co-operative Housing Society, the Court set aside the state's order to deregister the society and directed the competent authority to issue a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance. The Court held that the society's right to seek deemed conveyance cannot be made dependent on the pendency of a title suit, although it remains subject to the outcome of such litigation.
Furthermore, the High Court has addressed situations involving unauthorized constructions. In a notable ruling, the Court held that unilateral deemed conveyance cannot be denied to a housing society because of any illegal or unauthorized nature of its building. The Court reasoned that the default of promoters in obtaining necessary permissions and approvals should not impinge on the rights of flat purchasers to seek conveyance of the land and structure, even if the structure is unauthorized. However, the grant of deemed conveyance does not regularize the unauthorized structure, and planning authorities retain the power to take action against illegal constructions.
These judicial pronouncements collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of flat purchasers and ensuring that the objectives of MOFA are realized. By limiting judicial interference to cases of manifest illegality, the courts aim to prevent undue delays in the conveyance process and protect home buyers from protracted legal battles. The emphasis on administrative efficiency and the protection of purchasers' rights reflects a balanced approach that considers the interests of all stakeholders in the real estate sector.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's affirmation of limited judicial interference in deemed conveyance orders under MOFA reinforces the Act's purpose as a welfare legislation. It ensures that flat purchasers are not left in limbo due to developers' inaction and that the conveyance process is not hindered by unnecessary legal challenges. This judgment serves as a guiding precedent for future cases, promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in the real estate domain.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.