The Supreme Court passed a landmark order on 16 December 2024, in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Maneesh Bawa and others vs Jalaram Ashish Co-operative Housing Society. The order provides significant clarity on the process and scope of deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA).
Supreme Court’s Observations
- Direction on Area Amendment:
The Supreme Court addressed a Bombay High Court directive that allowed Jalaram Ashish Co-operative Housing Society to amend the area in its application for deemed conveyance from 6080.30 square meters to 6685.05 square meters. The Supreme Court found this amendment inappropriate as there had been no adjudication or determination of the exact area involved. Consequently, the Court ordered the deletion of this amendment, limiting the deemed conveyance certificate to 6080.30 square meters as per the original application. - Clause Interpretation under MOFA:
The Bombay High Court earlier referred to MOFA’s first schedule, which indicated the land area as 6685.05 square meters. However, the Competent Authority had incorrectly considered the area as 6080.30 square meters, leading to disputes. The Supreme Court emphasized that any amendment to the conveyance application must align with adjudicated facts and the original agreements under Section 4 of MOFA.
Challenges in Deemed Conveyance Applications
- Delay in Filing Petitions:
In several cases, including Jalaram Ashish Co-operative Housing Society, delays in challenging deemed conveyance orders were attributed to dysfunctional managing committees and subsequent administrative hurdles. Courts have acknowledged these challenges, especially when compounded by events like the COVID-19 pandemic. - Discrepancies in Land Areas:
Disputes often arise due to differences between the total area agreed upon in flat purchaser agreements and the area conveyed by the Competent Authority. For example, in this case, 2500 square meters occupied by seven structures were deducted from the conveyance area, despite the agreement specifying the entire land area. - Role of the Competent Authority:
The Supreme Court reiterated the statutory obligation of the Competent Authority to examine agreements thoroughly and ensure compliance with MOFA provisions. Errors in area calculations or improper deductions, as seen here, undermine the objectives of the Act.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Order
- Statutory Responsibilities:
The Competent Authority must adhere strictly to agreements under Section 4 of MOFA and ensure promoters fulfill their obligations without compelling societies to file civil suits unnecessarily. - Original Owners’ Rights:
The Court clarified that original owners must pursue their grievances through civil suits rather than using deemed conveyance proceedings to assert their rights. - Proportionate Share in Layouts:
For societies in larger layouts, proportionate area allocation remains crucial. Courts have stressed the need for government resolutions, such as the GR dated 22 June 2018, to be followed while issuing conveyance certificates.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order highlights the importance of a fair and precise approach to deemed conveyance proceedings. It ensures that societies, promoters, and original owners are treated equitably under MOFA while minimizing unnecessary litigation. The ruling serves as a reminder for authorities to exercise diligence and uphold statutory obligations, setting a precedent for future cases.
