Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963; Scope of Competent Authority's Powers; Summary Adjudication of Property Disputes (CaseLaws)

Conveyance of Title under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963; Scope of Competent Authority's Powers; Summary Adjudication of Property Disputes.

Case Citation:
Arunkumar H Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 524 (Supreme Court of India).

Facts
Property Origin: Champaben Hiralal Shah owned Final Plot No. 61 (2,814.38 sq. m) in Vile Parle, Mumbai ("Larger Plot").

Partnership & Dissolution:
A partnership firm, M/s CH Shah & Sons, was formed in 1972. The Larger Plot was Champaben’s capital contribution.
After her death, the firm dissolved in 1987. The Larger Plot was partitioned:
Lalbhai Plot (blue-verged area) allotted to Lalbhai H. Shah (predecessor of Respondents 2–5).
Arun Plot (yellow-verged area, including Building No. 3) allotted to Arun H. Shah (Appellant’s Karta).
Clause 8(h) of the dissolution deed required Lalbhai/co-operative society to execute a perpetual lease (nominal rent: Re. 1/year) in favor of Arun for the Arun Plot.

Development & Dispute:
Lalbhai formed a new firm (Avon Enterprises, Respondent 10), constructed buildings on the Lalbhai Plot, and sold flats.
The flat purchasers formed Respondent 1 (Co-operative Society) in 2005.
Respondent 1 sought deemed conveyance of the entire Larger Plot under MOFA Section 11(3), including the Arun Plot.
The Competent Authority (Respondent 11) ordered conveyance subject to Respondent 1 executing a perpetual lease for the Arun Plot in favor of the Appellant.
The Bombay High Court upheld this order, prompting the appeal.

Key Issues
Whether the Competent Authority under MOFA Section 11(3) can order conveyance of land not covered by flat purchase agreements?
Whether the Competent Authority can adjudicate title disputes involving third parties?
Validity of the order directing Respondent 1 to execute a perpetual lease for the Arun Plot.

Arguments
Appellant’s Contention:
The Arun Plot was never part of the flat purchase agreements. The Competent Authority exceeded jurisdiction by including it.
Title disputes require civil suit adjudication (Mazda Construction v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS; Marathon Next Gen Realty cited).
The perpetual lease condition in the order was "vague" (terms unspecified).

Respondent 1’s Contention:
The Larger Plot was undivided; conveyance was necessary for society formation.
Clause 8(h) of the dissolution deed mandated a lease for Arun, protecting his rights.
MOFA is a beneficial legislation for flat purchasers; delays in conveyance (since 1993) warranted summary relief.

Judgment Analysis
I. Scope of Competent Authority’s Powers (MOFA Section 11)
Summary Proceedings: The Competent Authority’s role is quasi-judicial but summary (Rule 13 of MOFA Rules). It cannot conduct cross-examination or conclusively decide title disputes.
"The competent authority... cannot conclusively and finally decide questions of title." (¶20)
Limited Jurisdiction: Authority may order conveyance only for land agreed upon in flat purchase agreements. Here, FPAs explicitly excluded the Arun Plot (¶28–29).
Civil Remedy Preserved: Affected parties retain the right to file civil suits for title determination (¶21, 35).

II. Validity of the Perpetual Lease Condition
Binding Contractual Obligation: Clause 8(h) of the 1987 dissolution deed obligated Lalbhai/the society to lease the Arun Plot to Arun’s HUF (Appellant).
"Sub-clause (h)… is binding on the present appellant." (¶29)
Protection of Rights: The Competent Authority’s order secured the Appellant’s rights as a perpetual lessee (¶32, 34). The 1991 lease deed (referenced in FPAs) further validated this.
No Vagueness: Lease terms derive from the dissolution deed and 1991 lease; execution details are actionable (¶33).

III. Role of Registering Officer (MOFA Section 11(5))
Limited Scrutiny: The Registering Officer cannot review the Competent Authority’s order. It may only check:
Statutory compliances (stamp duty, permissions).
Prohibitory court orders.
Registration formalities (¶23, 37(iv)).

Conclusion
Appeal Dismissed: The Competent Authority’s order and High Court judgment were upheld.

Key Holdings:
MOFA proceedings are summary; title disputes must be resolved via civil suits.
Competent Authority orders must protect third-party rights (here, via perpetual lease).
MOFA is a beneficial statute for flat purchasers; writ courts should not interfere unless orders are "manifestly illegal" (¶35).

Final Direction: Respondent 1 must execute a perpetual lease for the Arun Plot per Clause 8(h) of the dissolution deed and the 1991 lease terms.

Significance: The judgment clarifies the limited adjudicatory powers of MOFA authorities and reinforces that contractual obligations bind parties even in statutory summary proceedings.

Citations Relied Upon:
Mazda Construction Co. v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. (2012 SCC Online Bom 1266)
Marathon Next Gen Realty v. Competent Authority (2015 Mah LJ 318)
ACME Enterprises v. Deputy Registrar (2023 SCC Online Bom 1102)
Tanish Associates v. State of Maharashtra (2016 SCC Online Bom 12653)