Mumbai: Bombay high court recently set aside orders passed by the deputy registrar of cooperative societies, Thane district, who refused to grant deemed conveyance to four housing societies due to incomplete development of layout. It remanded the proceedings to be decided afresh.
“In my view, merely because development in the layout is not completed, the same cannot be a reason for not deciding the applications for deemed conveyance,” Justice Sandeep Marne said on Mar 20. Deemed conveyance is a legal process where a housing society obtains ownership of a building and land when the promoter/developer or landowner refuses to cooperate in transferring his right, title, and interest to it.
The four housing societies challenged the Mar 28, 2024 orders passed by the district deputy registrar and competent authority (CA) under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The latter held their applications for deemed conveyance were premature. One of the reasons given was incomplete development of the layout.
Justice Marne disagreed it could be a reason to reject their applications. He said once an occupation certificate is issued to a building constructed in a layout and a housing society is formed by flat purchasers, the society can apply for a unilateral deemed conveyance under section 11 of MOFA. Further, a Jun 2018 GR contemplates granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building where many buildings are being constructed on one plot and construction of all buildings yet to be completed.
Justice Marne noted that a reason for rejection was the societies failed to produce a legible copy of the sanctioned plan, adding, “this infirmity…could have been cured by directing the societies to file a legible copy.” Yet another reason given was the alleged mismatch of areas in the architect’s certificate. “…an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner-societies to produce a fresh architect certificate indicating the area of land that can be conveyed in their favour.” “Even the respondent-developer can be permitted to produce its own architect certificate indicating the area of land that could be conveyed in favour of the respective societies,” he said.
Justice Marne restored the societies’ applications on the file of the CA “who shall proceed to decide the same in accordance” with the GR. The CA shall grant opportunity to petitioners and the developer to rely on documents in support of their respective claims. He shall decide the remanded proceedings “on its own merits without being influenced by findings in the Mar 28 orders or in the present order.”
Mumbai: Bombay high court recently set aside orders passed by the deputy registrar of cooperative societies, Thane district, who refused to grant deemed conveyance to four housing societies due to incomplete development of layout. It remanded the proceedings to be decided afresh.
“In my view, merely because development in the layout is not completed, the same cannot be a reason for not deciding the applications for deemed conveyance,” Justice Sandeep Marne said on Mar 20. Deemed conveyance is a legal process where a housing society obtains ownership of a building and land when the promoter/developer or landowner refuses to cooperate in transferring his right, title, and interest to it.
The four housing societies challenged the Mar 28, 2024 orders passed by the district deputy registrar and competent authority (CA) under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The latter held their applications for deemed conveyance were premature. One of the reasons given was incomplete development of the layout.
Justice Marne disagreed it could be a reason to reject their applications. He said once an occupation certificate is issued to a building constructed in a layout and a housing society is formed by flat purchasers, the society can apply for a unilateral deemed conveyance under section 11 of MOFA. Further, a Jun 2018 GR contemplates granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building where many buildings are being constructed on one plot and construction of all buildings yet to be completed.
Justice Marne noted that a reason for rejection was the societies failed to produce a legible copy of the sanctioned plan, adding, “this infirmity…could have been cured by directing the societies to file a legible copy.” Yet another reason given was the alleged mismatch of areas in the architect’s certificate. “…an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner-societies to produce a fresh architect certificate indicating the area of land that can be conveyed in their favour.” “Even the respondent-developer can be permitted to produce its own architect certificate indicating the area of land that could be conveyed in favour of the respective societies,” he said.
Justice Marne restored the societies’ applications on the file of the CA “who shall proceed to decide the same in accordance” with the GR. The CA shall grant opportunity to petitioners and the developer to rely on documents in support of their respective claims. He shall decide the remanded proceedings “on its own merits without being influenced by findings in the Mar 28 orders or in the present order.”
