Today here we are going to discuss A very important TOPIC Deemed Conveyance.

 This Article also contains suggestions, and I appeal to the government to consider seriously for benefit of people at large. Deemed Conveyance has become fraud and liberal approach of courts and of law has given full freedom to the Committee, who circumvent law and oppress members after taking blanket consent.

Let us first learn the provision:

State of Maharashtra –

Section 11 in The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963

  1. Promoter to convey title, etc., and execute documents, according to agreement.

[(1) A promoter shall take all necessary steps to complete his title and convey to the organisation of persons, who take flats, which is registered either as a co-operative society or as a company as aforesaid, or to an association of flat takers [or apartment owners] [Section 11 renumbered as sub-section (1) and sub-sections (2) to (5) were inserted by Maharashtra 4 of 2008, (w.e.f. 25-2-2008), Section 6.] his right, title and interest in the land and building, and execute all relevant documents therefor in accordance with the agreement executed under section 4 and if no period for the execution of the conveyance is agreed upon, he shall execute the conveyance within the prescribed period and also deliver all documents of title relating to the property which may be in his possession or power.]

(2) [ It shall be the duty of the promoter to file with the Competent Authority, within the prescribed “‘period, a copy of the conveyance executed by him under sub-section (1).

(3) If the promoter fails to execute the conveyance in favour of the co-operative society formed under Section 10 or, as the case may be, the company or the association of apartment owners, as provided by sub-section (1), within the prescribed period, the members of such co-operative society or, as the case may be, the company or the association of apartment owners may, make an application, in writing, to the concerned Competent Authority accompanied by the true copies of the registered agreements for sale, executed with the promoter by each individual member of the society or the company or the association, who have purchased the fiats and all other relevant documents (including the occupation certificate, if any), for issuing a certificate that such society, or as the case may be, company or association, is entitled to have an unilateral deemed conveyance, executed in their favour and to have it registered.

(4)The Competent Authority, on receiving such application, within reasonable time and in any case not later than six months, after making such enquiry as deemed necessary and after verifying the authenticity of the documents submitted and after giving the promoter a reasonable opportunity of being heard, on being satisfied that it is a fit case for issuing such certificate, shall issue a certificate to the Sub-Registrar or any other appropriate Registration Officer under the Registration Act, 1908, certifying that it is a fit case for enforcing unilateral execution of conveyance deed conveying the right, title and interest of the promoter in the land and building in favour of the applicant, as deemed conveyance.

(5) On submission by such society or as the case may be, the company or the association of apartment owners, to the Sub-Registrar or the concerned appropriate Registration Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, the certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with the unilateral instrument of conveyance, the Sub-Registrar or the concerned appropriate Registration Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, issue summons to the promoter to show cause why such unilateral instrument should not be registered as ‘deemed conveyance’ and after giving the promoter and the applicants a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may, on being satisfied that it was a fit case for unilateral conveyance, register that instrument as ‘deemed conveyance’.] [Section 11 renumbered as sub-section (1) and sub-sections (2) to (5) were inserted by Maharashtra 4 of 2008, (w.e.f. 25-2-2008), Section 6.]

There are guidelines for application and granting of Deemed Conveyance.

These guidelines are very liberal. Deputy District Registrar do not inquire much and pass orders on the basis of documents produced before him.

Before going to a recent case law first we will discuss broad angle and view taken by various Courts on Deemed Conveyance. I am putting stress on Deemed Conveyance because once it is granted it is final and even if Committee has played fraud, fabrication or adopted illegal means members have to accept and vacate the premises. If not minority has no right and will be thrown out in an Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Now lets us see transition and travel of Judgments:

  1. Mazda Construction Company vs Sultanabad Darshan Chs Ltd on 31 August, 2012 No competent authority can, therefore, determine on its own the entitlement of the parties who seek a deemed conveyance. In the instant case, what the Competent Authority has done is to hold that the deemed conveyance should be not only in relation to the area or portion of the building and land beneath it, but with regard to the common area and internal access and garden. That was clearly impermissible as what has been retained as a common amenity cannot be subject matter of the conveyance and in any event there is serious dispute between the parties with regard to the entitlement of the Respondent No.1. In such circumstances the adjudication by the competent civil court is the only remedy in the event the parties like the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 seek a conveyance in relation to such areas as are included in the order of the Competent Authority. They could not have made an application for grant of a deemed conveyance and therefore, the Competent Authority equally was not empowered to grant any relief on such application. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside.
  2. Division bench of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Shree Chintamani Builders Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9343 to which the Hon’ble Judge of this Court who was party to the case of Mazda Construction Company & Ors. (supra) was a party clarified the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Mazda Construction Company & Ors. (supra) that an order granting deemed conveyance will not conclude the issue of right, title and interest in the immovable property and to such an extent as is apprehended by the petitioner. In that matter, it is also clarified that it was not as if such an order is passed that the petitioners have no remedy to question the act of the society on the strength of such deemed conveyance. The petitioner can still bring a substantive suit on title and point out there in that as far as the dispute plot is concerned, the reservation was shifted. It is held that all such assertions and by pointing out the relevant documents and records so also by leading oral evidence can be substantiated by the petitioner in the substantive suit.
  3.  WRIT PETITION NO.12627 OF 2024 Jagshi Jethabhai Chheda & Anr. .. Versus District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mumbai & Ors. ..no notice as contemplated under 11(5) was ever served upon the Petitioners and no opportunity of hearing was given either. Therefore, the registration of the deemed conveyance runs foul of the mandatory provisions of Section 11(5), was the submission. In support of this argument, Counsel relied upon a decision of two separate learned Single Judges of this Court in the case of Kashish Park Reality Pvt Ltd & Anr. V/S State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2020 SCC Online Bom 11644 : (2021) 3 MhLJ 778] and K. G. Associates & Anr. V/S District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors. [2023 SCC Online Bom 2132].    Held: under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 11, it is mandatory on      the  part of  the Sub-Registrar or the Registration Officer to issue a summons to the Promoter to show cause as to why his unilateral instrument should not be registered as deemed conveyance and to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. In the present case, admittedly the Sub-Registrar or the Registration Officer failed to     issue any show cause notice to the Petitioners, much less any opportunity of hearing was granted to them.

4. Deed of Assignment and Deemed Conveyance

AH Wadia Trust vs State of Maharashtra The position in law is well settled i.e., the society/flat purchasers in an Application for Unilateral Deemed Conveyance are only entitled to whatever right, title and interest the Promoter has in the said land. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the Petitioners have only granted a Lease in respect of the said land to the Lessee. The Lessee in turn has assigned all it’s right, title and interest in the said land to the Promoters/Developers. Thus, even assuming that such assignment was valid, all that Respondent No.3 could have sought for in the Application for Deemed Conveyance was for a Lease of the said land and not a Conveyance. Respondent No. 3, however, whether consciously or then ill-advisedly in the Application for Deemed Conveyance sought a Conveyance of the said land in its favour and not a Lease.

firstly, to convey to Respondent No. 3 right, title and interest in the said land which the Lessee and/or the Promoter/Developer themselves did not have and secondly to divest the Petitioners of divested its right, title and interest in the said land, without so much as affording the Petitioners an opportunity of a hearing.

The Deemed Conveyance Set aside.

5. Right of Hearing and No Notice

Tushar Jivram Chauhan and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.to submit that the scheme of the MOFA contemplated that the Authority concerned was required to (a) consider the documents on record and (b) give a fair and equal opportunity of hearing to all concerned including owner, promoter, builder, and purchaser before passing an order of Deemed Conveyance. He submitted that, despite this, admittedly, the Petitioners though being owners of the said land, were neither made a party to the Application for Deemed Conveyance nor had the Petitioners been given notice of the hearing of the said Application.

Considering the scheme of MOFA Act and specifically Sections 10 and 11 so read and referred by the parties, in the facts and circumstances, play important roles for transfer of property, based upon the agreement between the Promoter/Purchaser of the respective portion of the Flat/Property/plot/land. All the parties, therefore, are bound by the agreement/contract before applying for conveyance and/or deemed conveyance and/or unilateral conveyance of the agreed property. It is settled that the description of the property in all respect is essential factor before granting/permitting such transfer and/or for registered agreement and/or registered sale deed. Uncleared/without description/vague boundary description are always a matter of issue when it comes to transfer of such property between the parties. The Competent Authority, therefore, in my view, is under obligation to see that deemed conveyance and/or unilateral conveyance, must confirmed and satisfied, based upon the written agreement between the parties before passing and/or granting the order/judgment on such Applications.

Narration:

Reading above laws and the precedents it is amply clear that Society is bound by the Agreement with the promoter/Builder, Right of Hearing is a Fundamental Right and if Society plays fraud, it will be set aside. If in the meantime building is demolished that the flat owners may remain homeless.

CRITICAL SUGGESTIONS ON JUDGMENTS:

  1. Minority member cannot challenge Deemed Conveyance Order. This is not good conclusion. Fraud, Misrepresentation and Forgery which has criminal prosecution must be an exception. It is because only member will challenge not outsiders. In Bombay High Court Writ Petition No 15689 of 2025 Chandresh Desai and Anr Vs DDR 3 , it’s a case of fraud prima facie. Committee did not follow process and mandatory guidelines. They issued notice to dead person and that too at wrong address. They filed false Affidavit that, there is no lease but ownership. DDR 3 did not even made an attempt to inquire or verify. Granted Certificate. When challenged by two members Bombay High Court observed that though there are serious anomalies but precedent and stare decisis say that minority cannot challenge Deemed Conveyance matter was disposed of with observation of fraud.
  2. Do not give unlimited power to AGM. The Committee becomes Superpower and there are ways and means to obtain blanket consent.
  3. Set up Redevelopment Board. Instead of giving power to DDR there has to be an independent body just like RERA.

REASON: Just on a Certificate Society is acquiring ownership rights. Society do not share all information with members and stake holders. In such case there are serious consequences of losing home. Any authority or committee without check and balances for monetary gain take risk and deceive own members and stake holders. Its a serious fraud and guidelines to Redevelopment must be made mandatory. 

Shruti Desai

9th December 2025