Bombay HC – Section 11 of MOFA – Deemed Conveyance – Objections of Promoter that Project was not complete and balance FSI is available for future development.

The flat purchasers are in possession since 2016.  The petitioner society was registered on 5.4.2019.

The application for deemed conveyance was rejected on the ground that the project was incomplete and balance FSI of 1226 sq.meters is available with the promoter for future development.

Any clause in an agreement which states that conveyance will be executed only after completion of a larger layout or after exploitation of full FSI runs contrary to the statutory scheme. The statute does not speak of completion of an entire township or future phases. It speaks of conveyance to the society within a defined period. The focus is on the building and the society formed by the flat purchasers. The law does not permit the promoter to hold back title merely because he proposes further development elsewhere on the layout.

If clauses postponing conveyance were to be enforced, the promoter could indefinitely delay transfer by referring to some future plan, additional FSI, or a proposed phase that may or may not materialise. That would leave the society without title, without control over the land, and in a state of uncertainty. The law does not contemplate such a situation. Contractual promises cannot be treated as a licence to withhold conveyance at will. Once the statutory conditions are fulfilled, the right of the society crystallises, and the promoter must comply.

The statutory right of the society cannot be kept in abeyance because of future contingencies. Therefore, neither the alleged balance FSI nor the subsequent town planning developments furnish a valid justification to deny the society the conveyance to which it became entitled in law.

A proceeding for unilateral deemed conveyance is not intended to resolve speculative claims regarding future exploitation of TDR or additional FSI. If such issues are allowed to dominate Section 11 proceedings, the very object of providing a summary and effective remedy to flat purchasers would be frustrated. The authority must resist the temptation to expand its jurisdiction under the guise of protecting potential rights of the promoter.

Judgment dated 10.2.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.1345 of 2026 of Mahalaxmi City (Type-D) Cooperative Housing Society Limited  Vs.  The Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raigad – Alibag and Ors