k 1/3 23 wp 5889.24 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5889 OF 2024 M/s. Mahakali Builders ....Petitioner V/S Mayuresh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Rohit D. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Raju M. Yamgar for Respondent No.1-Society. Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent Nos.4/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 17 JUNE 2026. P.C.: 1. The Petition challenges order dated 31 January 2024 passed by District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raigad at Alibag and Competent Authority granting certi/cate of unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 288 square meters in favour of Respondent No.1-Society. 2. I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Dr. Kapadia, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.4/State. 3. The Petitioner has essentially raised two objections to the order of deemed conveyance. Firstly, it is sought to be contended that the original land owner had expired and the impugned order is passed katkam Page No. 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AS:24652 k 2/3 23 wp 5889.24 as.doc without notice to the land owner. Secondly, it is sought to be contended that there is unconsumed FSI available in the land which the Petitioner is entitled to exploit. 4. So far as the issue of death of the original land owner is concerned, in my view, the Petitioner, in capacity as a Promoter cannot be permitted to take advantage of death of the original land owner. Under Section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) it is a statutory duty of the Petitioner-Promoter to perfect his title and to convey his right, title and interest in the land and building in favour of the Society. The Competent Authority has stepped into the shoes of the Petitioner and has performed the task which the Petitioner was required to perform. 5. So far as the second issue of unconsumed FSI is concerned, Mr. Joshi is unable to demonstrate from the plan as to whether any portion of sanctioned built up area has not actually been built by the Petitioner-Promoter. His reliance on clause 12 of the Agreement for Sale does not cut any ice. Under clause 12, the Petitioner-Developer has sought to retain rights in respect of terrace as well as in the additional FSI. However, it is repeatedly held by this Court that the Promoter cannot delay conveyance for eternity on the ground of availability of additional FSI due to change of FSI regime. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Lakeview Developers vs. Eternia Co-operative Housing Society Limited1. 1 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3824 katkam Page No. 2 of 3 k 3/3 23 wp 5889.24 as.doc 6. Another issue sought to be highlighted by Mr. Joshi is that Petitioner has retained two commercial galas/units in the building and that the Respondent-Society has not admitted the Petitioner as member thereof. Under provisions of Section 10 of MOFA, the Developer needs to be admitted as member of Co-operative Society in respect of unsold units. Petitioner can accordingly apply to the Respondent-Society for admission as member thereof. 7. In my view therefore, the Competent Authority has rightly issued the certi/cate of deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent-Society. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 3 of 3 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/06/2026 11:08:24