Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Wednesday upheld a deemed conveyance granted by a deputy registrar to a commercial cooperative society in Andheri East, observing that the law created in public interest cannot be overridden by a contract between a builder and flat purchasers that reserves, for the former, the right of further development on the land.Krishna Developers assailed the deemed conveyance granted to Corporate Centre Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. The society, representing unit purchasers of three buildings, was registered in 2007. The builder’s counsel argued that he was willing to execute the conveyance, subject to rights expressly reserved under the agreements executed with the flat purchasers. But the HC said: “Parties cannot by agreement override a legislative command.” Disputes over lack of conveyance abound in Mumbai and clog the court as builders battle to retain the development rights over the land.The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar, in his order, said that the grievance of Krishna Developers in a petition filed in 2024, in essence, was that the conveyance given to the society was “unfavourable to him”. The HC held, “Disagreement with the result does not amount to jurisdictional error.”The conveyance was granted to the three buildings after Occupancy Certificate (OC) was issued and all permissible FSI was utilised according to the sanctioned plan, the HC noted after hearing advocate Deepak Chitnis for the builder, Aloka Nadkarni as additional govt pleader, and Arun Panickar, the society’s counsel.Panickar argued that though the builder professed willingness to execute the conveyance, no steps were, in fact, taken to complete the conveyance within the statutory period, thereby necessitating recourse to the proceedings for deemed conveyance.A conveyance to the society is mandated by law in public interest once the building is complete. “Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) confers a specific duty upon the authority to step in where the promoter failed to execute conveyance within the prescribed period. The authority is enforcing a statutory obligation created in public interest,” the HC stressed.The court also noted that the record showed no surviving development rights remained with the promoter after completion of the three buildings. “Once the available FSI stood consumed and occupation certificates were issued, the promoter’s statutory duty to convey became absolute, subject only to what is lawfully recorded in the sanctioned plan,” the HC said, adding, “The promoter cannot rely upon private contractual language to defeat a public law obligation imposed by MOFA.“The HC clarified that its interference is warranted only when there is patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or manifest error of law. “None of these grounds are made out here,” it noted.To objections raised by the builder of the society management, the HC said the authority meant to consider conveyance does not decide complex title questions. “In that background, objections relating to internal management of the society must be viewed with caution. Societies function through elected office bearers. At times there may be disputes about eligibility, elections or resolutions. Such disputes are governed by the Co-operative Societies Act and can be resolved in appropriate forums. They do not automatically render every action taken by the society void,” the HC said.
