Limited Adjudicatory Scope of Competent Authorities and Registrars in “Deemed Conveyance” Proceedings under MOFA – A Commentary on Angeline Randolph Pereira v. Suyog Industrial Estate Premises Co‑operative Society Ltd. (2025 INSC 524)

Limited Adjudicatory Scope of Competent Authorities and Registrars in “Deemed Conveyance” Proceedings under MOFA

Commentary on Angeline Randolph Pereira v. Suyog Industrial Estate Premises Co‑operative Society Ltd. (2025 INSC 524)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Angeline Randolph Pereira v. Suyog Industrial Estate Premises Co‑operative Society Ltd. marks a significant clarification of the powers of (i) the Competent Authority appointed under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) and (ii) the Registrar/Sub‑Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908, when dealing with “deemed conveyance” applications filed under Section 11(3) of MOFA.

The appeal arose from a dispute between two branches of a family of developers (the Shahs) and the co‑operative society of flat‑purchasers occupying buildings erected on a single town‑planning plot in suburban Mumbai. The key question was whether the Competent Authority could grant a deemed conveyance of the entire plot—including a portion (“Arun plot”) allegedly never contracted for sale—when sharp title disputes persisted between family members. The Bombay High Court had upheld the Competent Authority’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed that view while laying down four doctrinal propositions that now guide all future deemed‑conveyance proceedings in Maharashtra.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  1. The Court upheld the Competent Authority’s order dated 18 September 2020 granting an ex‑parte deemed conveyance of the entire parent plot (Final Plot 61) to the first‑respondent Society, subject to a perpetual lease of the “Arun plot” (903.06 sq.m.) in favour of the appellant’s HUF.
  2. Proceedings under Section 11(3) are summary in nature; the authority cannot conclusively adjudicate complex title disputes. Aggrieved parties may still pursue a separate civil suit.
  3. The Registrar’s role under Section 11(5) is narrowly circumscribed: he may refuse registration only for non‑compliance with statutory prerequisites (stamp duty, requisite consents, subsisting court injunctions, etc.)—not on a de‑novo merits review.
  4. High Courts, in writ jurisdiction, should interfere with deemed‑conveyance orders only when they are “manifestly illegal,” since alternative civil remedies remain open to dissenting parties.
  5. The facts showed that the deed of dissolution (1987) and lease (1991) already protected the appellant’s entitlement to develop and recon­struct Building No. 3; consequently, no prejudice arose from the Competent Authority’s direction to execute a fresh perpetual lease.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • Mazda Construction Co. v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS (Bom HC, 2012) – Affirmed that Competent Authority cannot decide complex title issues; relied upon to argue that authority had over‑stepped. The Supreme Court distinguished the case but endorsed its underlying principle.
  • Marathon Next Gen Realty Ltd. v. Competent Authority (Bom HC, 2015) – Held that the authority’s jurisdiction is summary. SC substantially echoed this reasoning.
  • ACME Enterprises v. Deputy Registrar (Bom HC, 2023) – Re‑stated non‑adjudicatory nature of §11(3) proceedings.
  • Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare (SC, 2002) – Clarified when administrative bodies must act quasi‑judicially; cited to insist on fair hearing.
  • Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (SC, 2019) – On limits of quasi‑judicial findings; used to question authority’s evidentiary powers.
  • Division‑Bench approval in M/s Shree Chintamani Builders v. State of Maharashtra (Bom HC, 2016) and Tanish Associates v. State of Maharashtra (Bom HC, 2016) – Recognised that deemed conveyance is legislative attempt to remedy builder malpractices.

Collectively, these cases established that a) MOFA is remedial legislation; b) an expeditious, non‑technical process is intended; c) intricate ownership questions may still go to civil court. The Supreme Court’s judgment synthesises these strands into a definitive four‑fold test (see para 37 of the decision).

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

  1. Statutory Scheme. The Court dissected Section 11: sub‑s.(1) (developer’s duty), sub‑s.(3) (society’s remedy), sub‑s.(4) (competent authority’s certification), sub‑s.(5) (registrar’s duty). It then examined Rules 11–13 of the MOFA Rules 1964, highlighting the prohibition on cross‑examination and the 6‑month resolution timeline—proof of a summary design.
  2. Summary vs. Plenary Adjudication. Because the legislature adopted an abbreviated procedure, the authority cannot “finally and conclusively” decide rival titles; its order operates inter partes solely for registration purposes.
  3. Residual Civil Remedies. By explicitly keeping civil‑court jurisdiction intact, the MOFA balances speedy relief for flat‑purchasers with property‑law due process.
  4. Registrar’s Powers. A purposive reading of sub‑s.(5)—in harmony with sub‑s.(4) as mandated by rules of statutory interpretation—confines the Registrar to a “gate‑keeping” role, not an appellate one.
  5. Factual Matrix. On merits, the conflicting deeds (1987 dissolution, 1987/1991 partnership & lease) demonstrated that (i) plot was never physically subdivided; (ii) family itself envisaged the society executing a perpetual lease. Therefore, the Competent Authority’s order merely enforced pre‑existing arrangements.
  6. Exercise of Writ Powers. Applying the principle of “self‑restraint” in judicial review of specialist/quasi‑judicial bodies, the Court declined to disturb concurrent findings.

3.3 Potential Impact

  • Procedural Clarity: Authorities across Maharashtra now have a Supreme Court‑approved roadmap—streamlined verification, reasoned order, no cross‑examination, six‐month limit.
  • Registrar’s Function Delineated: Registrars can no longer refuse or defer registration on broad “title disputes” once a §11(4) certificate is produced; refusals must be limited to statutory compliance issues.
  • Reduced Litigation Delay for Flat‑Purchasers: Developers can no longer indefinitely stall conveyance by raising convoluted title conflicts.
  • Guidance for High Courts: The judgment cautions writ courts to avoid substituting their views for the Competent Authority’s except for patent illegality—likely to curb the spate of Article 226 challenges.
  • Encouragement of Amicable Resolution: Parties with deep‑seated title disagreements are nudged towards separate civil suits without holding flat‑owners hostage.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963)
A state legislation to protect flat purchasers’ interests—imposes mandatory disclosure, model form agreements, and timely conveyance of land & building.
Deemed Conveyance (Section 11(3)–(5))
When a builder fails to hand over title, the flat‑owners’ society can obtain a unilateral conveyance deed through administrative machinery, bypassing the builder.
Competent Authority (Section 5A)
A senior co‑operative department official empowered to certify entitlement to deemed conveyance.
Summary Proceedings
A quick process without full‑fledged trial procedures like cross‑examination or elaborate evidence; objective is speed rather than exhaustive fact‑finding.
Perpetual Lease
A lease for an indefinitely long period (often 999 years) at a nominal rent, effectively conferring rights akin to ownership while preserving lessor’s residual title.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court has crystallised the law on deemed conveyances under MOFA: the Competent Authority’s role is to grant swift, provisional relief; its orders do not extinguish sophisticated title claims, yet they cannot be emasculated by endless objections at the registration stage or in writ petitions. The judgment strikes a pragmatic balance—safeguarding purchasers from builder inertia while preserving the sanctity of property rights through the availability of regular civil suits. By delineating powers and boundaries with precision, Angeline Randolph Pereira equips stakeholders—authorities, registrars, developers, and flat societies—with a clear procedural compass, thereby promising to reduce chronic delays and foster greater certainty in Maharashtra’s housing sector.

Case Details

Comments