Background of the Kharghar Land Conveyance Dispute
The Bombay High Court recently resolved a complex legal dispute involving Balaji Corporation, Delta Central Cooperative Housing Society (Society), CIDCO, and the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963. The case centers on Balaji Corporation’s delayed conveyance of land in Kharghar, which prompted the Society to seek a unilateral conveyance, bringing key legal issues regarding developer obligations and purchasers’ rights into focus.
Parties Involved in the Dispute
- Balaji Corporation: The petitioner and developer responsible for the Delta Central project.
- Delta Central Cooperative Housing Society: The respondent representing individual flat purchasers, registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
- CIDCO: The public sector agency and landowner involved in leasing the property.
- Competent Authority under MOFA: The authority responsible for issuing the unilateral deemed conveyance, whose decision Balaji Corporation contested.
Development Overview and Expansion Plans
CIDCO leased Plot No. 4, located in Sector 23 of Village Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, to Balaji Corporation, covering an area of 8694.03 square meters. The Delta Central project initially comprised four wings and received necessary approvals from 2017 to 2019. However, Balaji Corporation later sought approval to add a fifth wing and a clubhouse, with permissions granted in 2021. Following this, flat purchasers formed a registered cooperative society on August 29, 2023.
The Dispute and Legal Proceedings
When Balaji Corporation delayed the conveyance of land, the Society requested a unilateral deemed conveyance, claiming that Balaji Corporation’s delays were unacceptable. Balaji Corporation countered that conveyance should occur only after additional expansions were completed, leading the Society to invoke Section 11 of MOFA for deemed conveyance, which the Competent Authority granted. This prompted Balaji Corporation to challenge the decision by filing a writ petition.
Key Arguments Raised by the Parties
Balaji Corporation’s Arguments
Inadequate Justification: Balaji Corporation argued that the Competent Authority’s order lacked detailed reasoning and did not fully consider its arguments.
RERA Rules Applicability: Balaji Corporation highlighted Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2019, which suggests that deemed conveyance should follow the issuance of the final occupancy certificate.
Challenging the Conveyance Order’s Legitimacy: Balaji Corporation contended that including land for the unapproved Wing E in the conveyance was erroneous and requested judicial review.
Society’s Position
Agreement Adherence: The Society argued that the original agreement with Balaji Corporation limited the project to four wings, justifying its claim to the land conveyance.
Occupancy Certificate Validation: The Society noted that CIDCO issued an occupancy certificate in October 2021, reinforcing its right to seek conveyance.
Competent Authority’s Order Legitimacy: The Society defended the Competent Authority’s decision, arguing that Balaji Corporation was obligated to convey the land as per the original project scope.
Court Decisions Referenced
ACME Enterprises vs. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies: This case emphasized that the Competent Authority’s role in granting conveyance is confined to the original terms agreed upon by the promoter.
Mazda Construction Company & Others vs. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. & Others: The court highlighted that the Competent Authority’s responsibility is to enforce the promoter’s obligations without extending beyond the initial agreement.
Bombay High Court’s Final Ruling
The High Court upheld the Competent Authority’s order for unilateral deemed conveyance, rejecting Balaji Corporation’s writ petition. The Court determined that the project was originally limited to four wings, affirming the Society’s right to the land. The judgment emphasized Balaji Corporation’s delay in fulfilling its obligations, which justified the Society’s pursuit of unilateral conveyance. Balaji Corporation retains the option to file a civil suit if it perceives that its rights have been compromised.
Conclusion and Implications for Flat Purchasers
This ruling highlights the legal obligations of developers under MOFA and RERA to ensure timely conveyance, safeguarding the rights of flat purchasers. The decision clarifies that deemed conveyance applies strictly to the developer’s original commitments, reinforcing that developers cannot defer conveyance based on plans for future expansions not included in the initial project agreement.