Bombay High Court
M/S Mahanagar Realty Throu. Its Partner … vs Ganga Ishanya Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd And … on 23 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:9189
WP-14936-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14936 OF 2023
M/S. Mahanagar Realty ]
A Partnership Firm Registered ]
Under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ]
Having its Office at: S. No. 19A/3A, CTS 373, ]
Pune-Satara Road, Adjoining Shankar ]
]
Maharaj Math,
]
Dhankawadi, Pune - 411043. ]
Through its Partner, ]
Bharat Mithalal Nagori ]
Age: 63 years, Occ: Business ] ...Petitioner
Versus
1) Ganga Ishanya Co-operative Housing ]
Society Ltd. ]
A Co-op. Housing Society registered ]
under the provisions of the Maharashtra ]
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Having ]
]
its registered office at: S. No. 19A, Hissa
]
No. 3A CTS No. 373, 375, 376, 377 & 378, ]
Satara Road, Dhankawadi, Pune - 411 042 ]
Through its Chairman, ]
Vijay Kantilal Shah ]
Age: 67, Occu: Lawyer ]
And ]
Secretary ]
Pankaj Chandrashekhar Deshmukh ]
Age: 45 years., Occu: Business, ]
2) Ganga Ishanya 'C' Co-operative Housing ]
Society Ltd. ]
(PNA/PNA(4)/HSG/(TC)/23719/2022-23) ]
A Co-op. Housing Society registered ]
under the provisions of the Maharashtra ]
]
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Having
]
its registered office at: S. No. 19A, Hissa ]
No. 3A CTS No. 373, 375, 376, 377 & 378, ]
Satara Road, Dhankawadi, Pune - 411 042 ]
Arya Chavan 1/21
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
Through its Chairman, ]
Sudhakar Kashid ]
Age: 58 years Occu.: Service ]
Scretary ]
Manoj Ijantkar ]
]
Age: 52 years, Occu.: Business
]
3) District Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative ]
societies, And Competent Authority ]
under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, ]
(Regulation of the promotion of ]
construction, sale, management and ]
]
transfer) Act, 1963.
]
Having its Office At: Sakar Sankul, Shivaji ]
Nagar, Pune- 411 005 ] ...Respondents
Mr. A. A. Kumbhkoni i/b Mr. Pankaj Das, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vishwajeet Sawant i/b Mr. Ashok Gade, Ms .Riya John, Mr. Navin
Rathod, for the Respondent No. 1 & 2.
Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
RESERVED ON : January 19th,2026
PRONOUNCED ON : February 23rd, 2026
--------------
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. With consent Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up
for final hearing.
2. The present petition, at the instance of the landowner/developer,
impugns the order dated 17th November, 2023 passed by the
Arya Chavan 2/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
Respondent No. 3-competent authority in Application No. 167 of 2023
filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 under Section 11 of Maharashtra
Ownership Flats and Apartment Act, 1963 (for short “MOFA”) seeking
certificate for execution of unilateral deemed conveyance.
FACTUAL MATRIX :
3. The Petitioner is owner of land bearing survey no. 19A, Hissa no.
3A admeasuring as per revenue record 25040 square meters but found
to physically admeasure 23734 square meters situated at village
Dhankawadi, District Pune. After deducting the area under road
widening of 1125 square meters, the net area admeasures 22609 square
meters. The Petitioner proposed development of residential/
commercial complex consisting of four buildings/wings ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’
on the said land and obtained necessary commencement certificate,
sanctioned building plans from the Pune Municipal Corporation. As per
the sanctioned plan, the residential building complex was to consist of
four buildings forming three independent projects (a) project
comprising of wings “A” and “B” named as Ganga Ishanya ‘AB’, (b) project
comprising of wing “C” named as Ganga Ishanya ‘C’ and (c) project
comprising wing “D” named as Ganga Nakshatra.
4. The construction of Ganga Ishanya ‘AB’ and Ganga Ishanya ‘C’ is
completed and the project Ganga Nakshatra comprising of
building/wing D is under construction. Respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e.
Arya Chavan 3/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
Ganga Ishanya ‘AB’ and Ganga Ishanya ‘C’ approached the competent
authority under Section 11 of MOFA by Application No. 167 of 2023
contending that the total area of subject plot was 22609 square meters.
Building no. A and B comprised of 81 flats and building no. C comprised
of 101 flats and the entire construction is over and sought conveyance
of the entire plot area of 22609 square meters along with the
construction thereon.
5. The Petitioner opposed the application contending that the
layout consists of four wings and have completed construction of Ganga
Ishanya ‘AB’ and Ganga Ishanya ‘C’, whereas wing ‘D’ is an ongoing
project. It was further stated that the built-up area of building ‘A’ and ‘B’
was 23469.34 square meters and building ‘C’ is 8239.34 square meters
and as per the sale agreement, the Petitioner will execute conveyance
of the entire land to an Apex Society formed of co-operative housing
societies of Building “AB”, “C” and “D”. It was contended that the
Petitioners are constructing building ‘D’ as part of the sanctioned layout
and obstruction has been caused by Respondent No. 1 and 2.
6. By the impugned order, the competent authority has taken into
consideration the statutory provisions of MOFA and Government
Resolution dated 22nd June, 2018 which provided that where there are
several buildings in one layout and constructed buildings have an
independent co-operative housing society and in event, the
Arya Chavan 4/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
construction of other buildings in the layout is not completed, the
deemed conveyance of the land is to be granted to the constructed
building in proportion to their built up area or ground coverage or plinth
area and undivided share in the common amenities. The competent
authority further considered the sanctioned plan of Pune Municipal
Corporation dated 2nd November, 2018 and by taking into consideration
the built-up area as per the sanctioned plan granted deemed
conveyance of land admeasuring 11890.53 square meters and 23469.34
square meters constructed area to Respondent No. 1 and land
admeasuring 4174.39 square meters and 8239.34 square meters
constructed area to the Respondent No 2.
SUBMISSIONS :
7. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior advocate for the Petitioner would
submit that MOFA came to be amended by MOFA Amendment and
Validation Act, 2025 and the amendment is given retrospective effect
from 1st May, 2016. He submits that by reason of the amendment in
respect of projects registered under RERA, the allottees are entitled to
seek deemed conveyance upon failure to execute the registered deed
of conveyance by the promoter as per the statutory provisions of RERA
and the obligation arises after the date of issuance of occupancy
certificate to the last of the building or wing in the layout. He submits
that as per Section 5 of the Amendment Act, 2025 pertaining to the
Arya Chavan 5/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
validation and savings, any action taken or any order of any authority
passed before commencement of the Amendment Act, 2025 shall be
deemed to have been validly executed and in the present case, as the
present Petition came to be admitted on 9 th October, 2024, and the
order of the competent authority is under challenge, the impugned
order is not saved by Section 5 of the Amendment Act, 2025.
8. He would further submit that the area available for development
is only 22,609 square meters. He submits that Ganga Ishanya A and
wing and Ganga Ishanya C wing were part of larger layout which
included the construction of Ganga Nakshatra D. He submits that Wings
AB and C are complete and the co-operative housing societies have
been registered. He submits that in the aforesaid layout, the 4 th building
i.e. Ganga Nakshatra D wing is proposed of 26 floors and 203 tenements
and presently the Petitioner has already constructed 7 floors and is in
the process of completing rest of the construction for which
considerable funds have been invested by the Petitioner. He would
further submit that the Petitioner is ready and willing to execute
appropriate conveyance to the apex society comprising of three
societies of the projects which are already completed and the final
conveyance will be executed of the land with common areas and
facilities in favour of the apex society and buildings with proportionate
land portion in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and 2. He submits that
Arya Chavan 6/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
however the competent authority has granted deemed conveyance of
larger plot of land than the one to which the Respondent Nos 1 and 2
are entitled. He would further point out that as per the architect’s
certificate annexed to Page 289 of the present Petition, Respondent No.
1 is entitled to 8678.19 square meters and Respondent No. 2 is entitled
to 3401.19 square meters and the proposed ‘D’ wing is entitled to
7370.46 square meters He submits that by virtue of conveyance of
11,890.53 square meters to Respondent No. 1 and 4174.39sq.m. to
Respondent No. 2. It has become impossible for the Petitioner to
complete construction of ‘D’ wing as permitted by the building
permission granted by the Corporation.
9. He would further submit that the competent authority while
granting deemed conveyance to Respondent No. 1 and 2 has given no
reason for conveying the said area to Respondent Nos 1 and 2. He
submits that the claim made by Respondent No. 1 and 2 was for the
entire plot of land, whereas the Petitioner’s architect certificate speaks
of a different area and the competent authority has given a completely
different area. He would further submit that it was necessary for an
architect’s certificate to be placed on record, before the competent
authority could have ascertained the entitlement of the Respondent No.
1 and 2. He submits that specific ground has been taken in the present
petition that there was no architect’s certificate produced on record,
Arya Chavan 7/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
and therefore, the area conveyed by the Respondent No. 3 is not
supported by any material on record. He submits that as per the
Government Resolution of 22nd June, 2018, it was open for the
competent authority to appoint an architect from the panel of architect
which has not been done in the present case. He submits that this Court
can modify the area and grant proportionate area as the impugned
order does not give any reasons for conveying the area as conveyed.
10. Mr. Sawant, learned senior advocate for Respondent No. 1 and 2
submits that in the year 2011, the original layout was sanctioned for
wing ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ with wing ‘D’ being a small commercial building of
ground + one plinth area admeasuring 528.75 square meters as per the
brochure advertised by the Petitioner. He submits that based on the
sanctioned layout plan of 2011, individual agreements for sale were
entered into by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Society
members under the provisions of MOFA. He submits that from time to
time the Petitioner revised the sanctioned layout without consent of
the flat purchasers. In the year 2017, the project came to be registered
under MAHARERA and the revised sanctioned plan has been obtained
by suppressing material facts. He submits that the last revised plan was
sanctioned on 24th February, 2023. He submits that in 2022, the
Petitioner started construction of “D” building and has converted the
initial ground + one area into ground + 32 residential and commercial
Arya Chavan 8/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
area based on illegally revised sanctioned layout. He submits that as
there was default in complying with the obligations under Section 11 of
MOFA, an application was filed by the Respondent No. 1 and 2 before
the competent authority which has rightly granted the conveyance to
the Respondent No. 1 and 2. He submits that though an area of 23,0609
square meters was claimed by way of deemed conveyance, the
Respondents are agreeable to the area conveyed by the impugned
order.
11. He submits that it is not the case of Petitioner that conveyance
ought not to be given and the dispute is as to the area to be conveyed.
He submits that based on sanctioned plan placed on record before the
competent authority of 2nd November, 2018, the authority has granted
proportionate area in accordance with the Government Resolution
dated 22nd June, 2018. He submits that there is no dispute about the
constructed area of Respondent No. 1 and 2 and it is case of simple
mathematical calculation of arriving at the proportionate area. He
tenders the area statement as per the sanctioned plan of 2018 working
out the area to be conveyed to the Respondent No. 1 and 2. He submits
that there is no question of remand only for the purpose of submitting
architect certificate as there is sufficient material for ascertaining the
area by the competent authority in the form of the sanctioned plan of
2018.
Arya Chavan 9/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
12. In so far as the amendment of 31st December, 2025 is concerned,
he would submit that as the order of the competent authority was
passed prior to the Amendment Act of 31 st December, 2025, Section 5 of
the Amendment Act, 2025 saves the impugned order. He submits that
the architect’s certificate which is now placed on record before this
Court was not placed before the competent authority and in any event,
the calculations are based on revised plan of the year 2022 and the
architect’s certificate would indicate that the statement is issued
subject to decision of the Municipal Commissioner in the subject matter
which is pending.
13. In rejoinder, Mr. Kumbhakoni would submit that as per the list of
documents, the architect’s certificate was not submitted by the
Respondent No. 1 and 2. He would further submit that the Petitioner
has pleaded in the petition that the competent authority had granted
liberty to both the parties to file their additional submissions and their
documents, if any, and in view thereof, the Petitioner was in the process
of filing the submissions as well as the architect certificate giving
correct and exact calculation, however, the same was not placed on
record as the Roznama of the competent authority did not indicate the
date by which the written submissions/additional documents were
required to be filed. He submits that it is not the case of simple
mathematical calculation by considering the proportionate area and
Arya Chavan 10/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
what was required to be considered is the land to be conveyed to
sustain the built-up area which has nexus with FSI.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS :
14. The Petitioner who is the developer had proposed development
on the larger layout of three projects comprising of Wings AB as one
project, Wing C as second project and Wing D as the third project. The
flat purchaser’s agreement dated 17 th September, 2013 which is placed
on record at Page 318 of the Petition, has been executed between the
Petitioner and the flat purchaser of tenement in Wing A. The said
agreement contains recital about sanction of building plans obtained
from the Pune Municipal Corporation dated 22 nd August, 2011. Similarly,
there is a flat purchaser’s agreement dated 15 th December, 2012
executed between the Petitioner and flat purchaser of tenement in
Wing B placed at Page 402. There is another flat purchaser’s agreement
dated 11th October, 2018 executed with flat purchaser of Wing C which
speaks of the entire project comprising of four buildings/wings i.e. A, B,
C and D and the revised sanctioned plant dated 20th July, 2017.
15. Perusal of the flat purchasers agreement executed in the year
2011 would indicate reference to sanctioned plans of the year 2011. The
sanctioned plans of the year 2011 speaks of construction of Wings A,
B,C and D. The flat purchasers were therefore alive to the proposed
construction of wing D. The sanctioned plan of 22 nd August, 2011 shows
Arya Chavan 11/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
the built up area calculations of all the Wings and in so far as Wing D is
concerned, the plan shows construction of ground floor with BUA of
257.74 square meters apart from common amenities which BUA of D
Wing was retained in the sanctioned plan of the year 2013. The BUA of
D Wing was revised in the sanctioned plan of the year 2014 and the area
of ground floor increased to about 500 square meters and first floor
was proposed with BUA of about 182 square meters. In the sanctioned
plan of the year 2017, the BUA in so far as D Wing is concerned was
further revised to 622.39 square meters on ground floor and mezzanine
floor of about 330.34 square meters. It is therefore evident that
subsequent to the execution of the flat purchaser’s agreement, the
sanctioned plans have been revised from time to time. The occupation
certificate of Wings AB was received on 21st September, 2018 and Wing
C was received on 29th June, 2021.
16. Before the Competent Authority, the plan of 2 nd November, 2018
was placed for consideration in which the constructed area of Wings A
was 11692.73 square meters, Wing B was 11776.61 square meters, Wing
C was 8239.34 square meters and Wing D was 7269.81 square meters.
The area statement shows the net plot are at 19748.01 square meters
and with addition of TDR previously approved and TDR proposed shows
the permissible FSI at 39005. To simplify the procedure in respect of
grant of certificate for execution of unilateral deemed conveyance, the
Arya Chavan 12/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
Government of Maharashtra has issued a Government Resolution dated
22nd June 2018. Relevant for our purpose are Sub-clauses (1) and (4) of
Clause 2(B) of the said Resolution which reads thus :
“1) If there are many buildings on one plot and have a
separate co-operative society of each building and if
construction of some of them is incomplete then while making
Deemed Conveyance of completed building, undivided share of
occupancy right in the proportion of construction on the
proportionate area of the construction of the building of such
society or ground coverage or plinth area, similarly open space,
common services and facilities, roads should be given.”
"3) ..........
4) If the developer did not complete the project in
expectation of getting additional FSI or TDR in urban area, then
in such cases, deemed conveyance of the number of flats
proposed as per approved construction plan and that much flats
are constructed then their deemed conveyance should be made.”
17. The guidelines specifically deal with the situation where there are
many buildings on one plot and have separate cooperative societies and
when the construction of some of them is incomplete. The purport is to
grant conveyance of the land required to sustain the constructed
structure along with the proportionate area in common amenities which
is required to be conveyed.
18. There is no dispute about the applicability of the Government
Resolution of 22nd June, 2018 or about the obligation of the Petitioner
to convey the land and the building to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or
about the constructed built up areas of Wings AB and C. The entire
dispute is centered around the area which ought to have been conveyed
to Wings AB and C under Section 11 of MOFA. The contention of Mr.
Arya Chavan 13/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
Kumbhakoni is that without an architect’s certificate on record, there is
no basis for conveying the area as conveyed by the impugned order. I am
unable to subscribe to the said contention. Considering that the
sanctioned plan of 2nd November, 2018 was on record and the
constructed built up area of Respondent No 1 and 2, who were seeking
deemed conveyance was not disputed, it was matter of simple
mathematical calculation. The constructed BUA of Wings A & B is
23469.34 square meters and of Wing C is 8239.34 square meters. The
total plot area is 19748.01 square meters as per sanctioned plan and the
total permissible FSI was 38978.49. For purpose of sustaining the built
up area of the constructed buildings, by taking into consideration the
total permissible FSI, the share of Wings AB in the total plot area would
be :
23469.34
x 19748.01= 11890.53 square meters.
38978.49
Share of Wing C in the total plot area would be :
8239.34
x 19748.01 = 4174.36 square meters.
38978.49
19. The competent authority has rightly calculated the proportionate
land area on basis of the sanctioned plan of the year 2018 and conveyed
proportionate share in the plot area and the constructed built up area. I
Arya Chavan 14/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
am, therefore, unable to accept the contention that without the
architect’s certificate being on record, there is no basis for ascertaining
the area required to be conveyed. Though, reliance has been placed by
Mr. Kumbhakoni on the architect’s certificate annexed at Page 290 of
the Petition, firstly this certificate has been produced before this Court
for the first time and secondly the certificate is based on the revised
sanctioned plan of the year 2022 and the certificate comes with a
disclaimer of being subject to the decision pending before Pune
Municipal Corporation. The certificate cannot be relied upon to
ascertain the proportionate area to be conveyed to the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
20. It needs to be noted that in event the proportionate area required
to sustain the building as directed to be conveyed by the Government
Resolution of 2018 is construed literally, then as the FSI was 1, Wing AB
itself would take complete plot area of about 23000 square meters to
sustain its constructed BUA was 23469.34 square meters. The impugned
order does not calculate the proportionate area literally but on the
basis of the area statement and considering the permissible FSI as per
the sanctioned plan of 2018 has ascertained the proportionate share of
plot area to be conveyed.
21. As per the sanctioned plan of 2018, the TDR utilized earlier was
10569.84, thereafter by the revised plan, the TDR proposed to be
Arya Chavan 15/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
utilized was 7462.08. By loading TDR, the Petitioner gets right to
construct additional area thereby proportionately reducing the already
constructed building’s share in the FSI. For eg. if the Petitioner is
permitted to utilize further TDR and gets FSI of 50,000 and proposes to
utilize the FSI for enhanced constructed of Wing D, the share of Wings
AB in the plot area will be :
23469.34
x 19748.01 = 9269.45
50000
22. The share of the constructed buildings in the plot area/ FSI gets
reduced with every revised sanctioned plan and if building AB goes for
re-development in future, then considering the reduced plot area, the
FSI may not be sufficient to sustain re-development. It is therefore
necessary to freeze the FSI as per the sanctioned plan after some of the
buildings in the layout are constructed for purpose of grant of deemed
conveyance, which is what is sought to be achieved by the Government
Resolution of 22nd June, 2018. The Competent Authority has rightly
considered the sanctioned plan of the year 2018 which was placed
before it for consideration and applied the GR of 22 nd June, 2018 for
calculating the proportionate share in the plot to be conveyed.
23. By opposing the area sought to be conveyed by the impugned
order, in effect, the Petitioner claims the benefit of TDR as may be
sanctioned for enhanced construction of Wing D, which is clear from the
Arya Chavan 16/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
revised sanctioned plans showing increased TDR proposed to be utilized
for construction of Wing D.
24. The Petitioner’s case of decreased entitlement of Respondent No
1 and 2 in the plot area would entail an inquiry as to whether the
construction of Wing D should be in consonance with the sanctioned
plans as disclosed to the flat purchasers of Wings AB and C or the flat
purchasers had consented to utilization of additional TDR for enhanced
construction of wing D. Perusal of the clauses in the flat purchaser’s
agreements executed in the year 2011 and 2018 would disclose some
degree of variance as regards the disclosure of sanctioned plans which
were revised from time to time. The core of the dispute lies in the
nature of enhanced construction proposed in respect of Wing D.
Whether the flat purchasers of Wings AB and C had consented to the
Petitioner’s entitlement to the benefit of TDR for construction of Wing
D is not an issue to be adjudicated in Section 11 application.
Considering the restrictive nature of inquiry contemplated in
adjudicating an application under Section 11 of MOFA, these issues
pertaining to Section 7 and 7A of MOFA are outside the remit of inquiry
by the competent authority and can be effectively adjudicated only in
Civil Court.
25. The flat purchaser’s agreement dated 11 th October, 2018 in
respect of tenement in Wing C contains Clause 35 which reads as under:
Arya Chavan 17/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
“35. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove, the
Promoter shall cause the said Project to be conveyed in favour of
the Co-operative Housing Society formed of all the Purchaser/s
of Units therein within a period of One year from the date the
Promoter completes the last unit in the said Project and after
the Promoter has realized all its dues from all the Purchaser/s of
all units in the said Project. Further the Promoter, shall, within a
period of One Year form completion of the last Building forming
part of the said Whole Project cause to be conveyed the said
Land and all areas and facilities common to the Whole Project to
the Apex Society formed with the Co-operative Societies formed
of the holders of Units in individual Societies in the said Whole
Project as its Members.”
26. The contractual clause is pressed in service to obstruct the right of
the Respondent Nos 1 and 2 to deemed conveyance. The said clause
does not find mention in flat purchaser’s agreement dated 17 th
September,2013 annexed at Page 318 in so much specific terms and
appears to have been included in the later flat purchaser’s agreements.
Secondly, such a contractual term has been found to be in direct conflict
with Rule 9 of MOFA Rules by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Lok
Housing & Construction Ltd vs State of Maharashtra And Others 1. In
that case the flat purchaser’s agreement contained a clause that the
conveyance deed would be executed only upon completion of the entire
development scheme. The Learned Single Judge interpreted Rule 9 of
MOFA Rules to hold that the term “period” in Rule 9 cannot be
interpreted to mean an indeterminate, future event based timeline such
as completion of the entire development scheme.
27. Dealing next with the submission as regards the Amendment Act
1 2025:BHC-AS:13887
Arya Chavan 18/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
of 31st December, 2025. By virtue of the said amendment, Section 11 A
is deemed to have been inserted in MOFA with effect from 1 st May, 2016
which provides for the entitlement of association of allottees to
deemed conveyance as per provisions of RERA, which speaks of
conveyance after the receipt of occupancy certificate of last of the
building in the layout.
28. What is necessary to consider is Section 5 which is the validation
and saving clause. Section 5 of the Amendment Act, 2025 provides that
any proceedings instituted under the provisions of the principal act
before the commencement of the MOFA Amendment Act including the
decisions taken, orders passed or directions issued by competent
authority shall be deemed to be duly and validly executed and no suit or
legal proceedings shall lie in any Court on the ground that the
provisions of the said principal act prior to such commencement did not
provide for unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of real estate
projects registered under RERA. The validation and saving clause,
therefore, saves the orders passed by the competent authority. In the
present case, the impugned order has been passed by the competent
authority on 17th November, 2023 i.e prior to the Amendment Act of
31st December, 2025, and therefore, the impugned order is saved. The
present Petition being a continuation of the proceedings will be
governed by the statute in force at the time of passing of the impugned
Arya Chavan 19/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
order. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission that by reason
of the Petition being admitted, the saving clause will not apply the
impugned order.
29. Coming the decisions relied upon to assail the impugned order, in
case of Velentine Properties Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra
And Others2, the flat purchaser’s agreement included a clause as
regards reservation of right to develop the balance land area. Despite
the said clause, the competent authority declined the entitlement of
developer to the retained area of 146 square meters. The facts herein
are completely distinguishable as the Petitioner claims the benefit of
additional TDR for enhanced construction of Wing D.
30. The decision in Acme Enterprises & Another vs Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies (2) And Others 3 arose of interim application
filed in cross suits by the developer and the federation of housing
societies involving dispute about conveyance of land in common layout
and developer’s right to carry out further construction. The present
proceedings arise of Section 11 application and the competent
authority even otherwise could not have gone into the said issues.
31. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order of Competent Authority passed under Section 11 of
MOFA. The Petitioner is at liberty to file declaratory suit for enforcing
2 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5424
3 2025:BHC-OS:20023
Arya Chavan 20/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
WP-14936-2023.doc
its entitlement to utilize the benefit of TDR for additional construction
of Wing D.
32. Resultantly, the Petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)
33. At this stage, Mr. Kumbhakoni learned senior advocate for the
Petitioner seeks extension of ad-interim order granted on 9 th October,
2024.
34. Mr. Gade, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
opposes the request. As the interim order is operating since 9 th October,
2024, the same is extended for period of 6 weeks from today.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)
Arya Chavan 21/21
::: Uploaded on – 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/02/2026 20:34:03 :::
