The case of Veer Tower Co-operative Housing Society Limited revolves around the challenge to the dismissal of their application for deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management, and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA Act). The petitioner, Veer Tower Co-operative Housing Society Limited, approached the court after their application for deemed conveyance was rejected by the Competent Authority.
The petitioner argued that:
- The developer had not utilized the full Floor Space Index (FSI), which was a crucial aspect of the redevelopment.
- The conveyance was conditional on the complete redevelopment of all constituent societies within the project.
- The Architect’s certificate submitted was erroneous and did not reflect the factual position.
The respondents opposed the application, claiming that:
- The conveyance was meant to be granted in favor of a federation of societies once the entire layout plan was completed.
- A gift deed had transferred certain rights to a Trust, allowing them to utilize the FSI.
- The petitioner was responsible for delays in the redevelopment process.
The respondents’ key argument was that conveyance should be granted to a federation of societies only after the layout plan was fully implemented. They highlighted the existence of a gift deed that conferred rights upon a Trust and contended that delays in redevelopment were due to the petitioner’s own inaction.
The petitioner countered these claims, stating that:
- The Agreement for Sale represented a mutual understanding between the parties, ensuring that conveyance should not be indefinitely postponed.
- Opposing parties cannot use procedural delays as a means to indefinitely defer the formation of a federation.
- The Competent Authority must recognize their statutory right and issue the deemed conveyance.
The court noted that while a civil suit was pending in which the petitioner sought broader relief related to a new sanctioned plan, the existence of this suit did not negate their statutory remedy under the MOFA Act to seek deemed conveyance.
The court ruled that the statutory right to seek deemed conveyance cannot be indefinitely deferred on the basis of redevelopment that has not yet commenced. The judgment emphasized the protection of property purchasers’ rights and the importance of upholding legal obligations under the MOFA Act.
Key observations of the court:
- The petitioner’s right to conveyance had matured upon the execution of the agreement and the payment of consideration. Therefore, it could not be made contingent upon unverified future assurances of compliance with redevelopment obligations.
- Delays in forming a federation or executing redevelopment plans do not negate the legal right to conveyance under the MOFA Act.
- The rejection of the petitioner’s application for deemed conveyance was quashed.
The court directed respondent No. 1 to reconsider the application and issue a certificate of conveyance based on the Architect’s certificate. However, it clarified that any civil rights or entitlements linked to the redevelopment project could still be determined separately in the civil court.
This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory conveyance rights under the MOFA Act cannot be indefinitely postponed due to unexecuted redevelopment projects. It upholds the legal protections for housing society members, ensuring that property rights are not hindered by procedural delays or administrative hurdles.
