Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court

"The deemed conveyance under MOFA transfers only such right, title and interest as the promoter actually possesses. It does not adjudicate or enlarge title", Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a series of actions culminating in a deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

Justice Amit Borkar, delivering a detailed and precedent-conscious ruling, held that the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA is limited and summary in nature and cannot be invoked to resolve complex title disputes involving allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or proprietary rights of legal heirs.

“Civil rights of the parties remain unaffected by Competent Authority’s order” — High Court refuses interference in Deemed Conveyance proceedings

The judgment, dealing with a writ petition filed by one of the legal heirs of the original landowner, clarified the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 vis-à-vis orders passed under Section 11 of MOFA. The Court held:

“If the promoter or landowner is of the view that the conveyance order includes a larger extent of land or rights than what could legally be conveyed, the remedy lies in filing a substantive civil suit.”

The petitioner had challenged the deemed conveyance order dated 11.05.2022 and subsequent documents including a registered unilateral deemed conveyance deed, corrigendum, supplementary agreement, and mutation entry, primarily on the grounds of fraud, suppression of material facts, misidentification of property, and violation of natural justice. The petitioner, one of the legal heirs of Late Laxman Pandurang Thakur, alleged that the conveyance included structures and areas not forming part of any MOFA agreement, such as a family chawl and temple on ancestral land, and that notices had been fraudulently served upon a deceased person.

The property in dispute comprised land at Dahisar, Mumbai, originally owned by the deceased Laxman Pandurang Thakur. The Dahisar Siddhi Apartment CHSL (Respondent No. 1) had filed an application for deemed conveyance in 2021, over two decades after the death of the original landowner in 1995. The petitioner alleged that several legal heirs, including herself, were not notified or served, and that conveyance proceedings proceeded against the name of a deceased person. She further challenged the chain of title and the alleged absence of any document evidencing transfer of development rights to the builder.

The Competent Authority proceeded to grant deemed conveyance based on available documents, and the conveyance deed and mutation entry were registered accordingly.

Can a writ under Article 227 lie against a deemed conveyance that allegedly overreaches title and includes ancestral structures?

Justice Borkar held that the scope of scrutiny under Article 227 is narrow and cannot be expanded to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact or title. He observed:

“The Competent Authority exercises a limited and summary jurisdiction. Its role is confined to enforcing the statutory obligation of the promoter to execute conveyance in favour of the society in terms of the agreements executed under Section 4. It is not a civil court.”

Referring to prior authoritative pronouncements of the Bombay High Court, including Zainul Abedin Yusufali Massawala v. Competent Authority and Shimmering Heights CHSL v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reinforced the legal position that Section 11 of MOFA does not confer jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes or determine the quantum of land or ownership rights. The deemed conveyance transfers only that which the promoter possesses; nothing more.

“Even if it is assumed that the impugned order has conveyed a larger area than what was contractually agreed, the petitioner’s substantive rights are not extinguished. The deemed conveyance operates only to the extent of the promoter’s existing interest.”

Violation of Natural Justice: No Real Prejudice Demonstrated

The petitioner had also contended that the proceedings stood vitiated due to non-service of notice, particularly since notices were issued in the name of the deceased landowner, and her signature was allegedly forged on a No Objection Certificate.

However, applying the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706, the High Court ruled:

“Natural justice is not an inflexible ritual... A mere allegation of violation does not automatically invalidate the action. The Court must examine whether real prejudice has in fact been caused.”

It was noted that one legal representative had participated in the proceedings, and several other heirs had submitted No Objection Certificates. The Court thus found that the estate of the deceased was substantially represented and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate what difference an oral hearing or proper service would have made to the outcome.

“The plea of prejudice rests solely on the assertion that proper service was not effected... Such assertion, without showing tangible impact on the decision, does not satisfy the test of real prejudice.”

Relegation to Civil Remedy

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 227, emphasizing that the petitioner must approach a civil court to seek declaratory or partitionary relief. It reiterated that:

“Entertaining the present petition and embarking upon an enquiry into disputed ownership would amount to bypassing the statutory remedy available before the civil court.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a substantive civil suit. All questions of fact and law were expressly kept open for adjudication by the civil court.

“The petitioner is relegated to avail remedies by way of civil suit before the competent civil court. All questions are kept open.”

The judgment reflects a judicious restraint on part of the High Court in matters involving complex factual matrices, reiterating the primacy of civil courts in adjudicating substantive rights relating to property, especially where the statutory authority’s role is summary and limited.

Date of Decision: 06 February 2026