In a significant ruling under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), the Bombay High Court has upheld a unilateral deemed conveyance granted in favour of the IJMIMA – Imitation Jewellery Market Co-operative Society, ending a prolonged wait of nearly two decades for owners of units in Building No. 4 of the Raheja Metroplex project at Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai.
Justice Amit Borkar dismissed three writ petitions filed by Nusli Neville Wadia (Administrator of the Estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw), Radhakrishna Properties Pvt. Ltd., and Ivory Properties and Hotels Ltd., challenging the Competent Authority’s order dated 29 August 2022. The order had granted deemed conveyance of approximately 16,747.19 sq.m of land plus 2,955.39 sq.m of recreational ground area (totaling about 22% of the larger 89,056 sq.m plot bearing CTS No. 1406A/14) on a freehold/ownership basis.
Background of the Dispute
The larger property originally belonged to the Estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw, managed by Nusli Neville Wadia. In 1995, development rights were handed over to Ivory Properties (a Raheja group entity), which later sub-contracted to Radhakrishna Properties. The project was planned as a phased layout with 10 buildings under the name “Raheja Metroplex.”
In 2002–2003, Radhakrishna Properties executed MOUs with the Imitation Jewellery Manufacturers’ Association, reserving Building No. 4 exclusively for association members. Between 2003–2005, registered Agreements for Sale under Section 4 of MOFA were executed with individual buyers (association members), with Wadia as a signatory. Buyers paid 12% of the consideration directly to Wadia as land price.
Building No. 4 was completed in 2005, with an Occupation Certificate issued and possession handed over. The society (IJMIMA) was registered in 2009. However, no conveyance was executed for nearly two decades, amid inter-promoter disputes and stalled development on the remaining plots.
In December 2021, the society demanded conveyance. When ignored, it applied in April 2022 to the District Deputy Registrar (Competent Authority under Section 11 MOFA) for unilateral deemed conveyance. After notice and hearing, the authority granted it on 29 August 2022, applying the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 and an Architect’s certificate dated 6 April 2022 for proportionate area calculation.
Key Challenges by Petitioners
The petitioners argued:
- Contractual documents (1995 agreements and 2002–2003 MOUs) contemplated only long-term leasehold rights, not freehold conveyance.
- Conveyance could occur only after full layout completion and formation of an Apex Body.
- The granted area was excessive (MOUs mentioned minimum 6,900–7,240 sq.m).
- Procedural lapses: defective Form X, invalid service (especially on Radhakrishna Properties at an old address), suppression of MOUs, and misjoinder of unbuilt buildings.
- The society, registered as a general co-operative, was ineligible under MOFA.
Court’s Detailed Reasoning
Justice Borkar held that:
- Statutory MOFA Agreements for Sale (registered and executed with buyers) prevail over earlier internal agreements/MOUs. These agreements explicitly contemplated transfer of title in the land, with Wadia receiving land consideration directly.
- No formal lease deed was executed; promoters cannot retain superior title while conveying limited rights.
- Building No. 4 was completed in 2005 with no further development for ~17–20 years — promoters cannot indefinitely delay conveyance on pretext of future plans, defeating MOFA’s protective intent.
- The 22% proportionate area was correctly calculated per the 2018 GR formula, sanctioned plan, and Architect’s certificate. Disputes on exact area/title remain open in civil suit.
- Procedural objections failed the prejudice test (following Supreme Court precedents like State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh): Two promoters appeared and contested on merits; public notice was published; no real prejudice shown despite technical defects in service/Form X/misjoinder.
- MOUs were referenced in MOFA agreement recitals — no material suppression proved.
- MOFA does not restrict eligibility to “housing societies”; commercial societies (covering shops/offices) qualify.
The court clarified that Section 11 proceedings are summary and do not finally adjudicate complex title disputes — parties may pursue civil remedies for deeper issues.
Lawyers and Appearances
- For Nusli Neville Wadia (WP/14690/2022): Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meena Doshi and Mr. Hasan Mushabber (i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah).
- For Ivory Properties (WP/112/2023) and respondent in WP/14690/2022: Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aniruth Haryeni, Mr. Hemanta, and Mr. Rahil Shah (i/b Veritas Legal).
- For Radhakrishna Properties (WP/1584/2024) and respondent in other petitions: Mr. Bharat Zaveri with Ms. Aishwaryajeeta Tawde (i/b Kanga & Co.).
- For the society (respondent): Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Viraj Parikh (i/b Mr. Dharmesh S. Jain).
- State represented by various AGPs.
The petitions were reserved on 4 February 2026 and pronounced on 24 February 2026. All writ petitions stand dismissed, with the impugned order upheld. No costs awarded.
This ruling reinforces MOFA’s objective: protecting flat purchasers from indefinite delays by promoters, even in phased/commercial projects.
Also Read: Stuck With Deemed Conveyance? Maharashtra Govt Launches Statewide 4-Day Camp for Housing Societies
