Supreme Court of India· 21 April 2025
What is the scope of the registering officer's power under Section 11(5) of the MOFA when a certificate of deemed conveyance is submitted?
ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF v. AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.
2025 INSC 524 · CIVIL APPEAL NO.5377 OF 2025
Coram: Abhay S. Oka; Ujjal Bhuyan
Answer
It is limited. The registering officer is neither an appellate authority nor a revisional authority and has no power to reopen or set aside the findings of the competent authority or to go into the correctness of its order. He may refuse registration only where a statutory permission or consent has not been produced, where a prohibitory order of a competent court restrains execution, or where stamp duty and other procedural requirements under the Registration Act, 1908 are not complied with.
Headnote
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 — ss.5A, 11(3), 11(4), 11(5) — Registration Act, 1908 — Deemed conveyance — Competent authority — Summary procedure — Question of title — Writ jurisdiction —
Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 — s.11(3) — Competent authority — Summary procedure; reasons must be recorded —
Held: Quasi-judicial powers are conferred on the competent authority, but proceedings under Section 11(3) are of a summary nature and cross-examination of the parties is absolutely prohibited. The competent authority must nevertheless record reasons while passing the final order. (¶19, 20)
Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 — s.11(4) — Question of title — Civil suit remains open —
Held further: Following that summary procedure, the competent authority cannot conclusively and finally decide the question of title. Notwithstanding an order under sub-section (4) of Section 11, aggrieved parties can always maintain a civil suit for establishing their rights. (¶20, 37)
Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 — s.11(5) — Registration Act, 1908 — Registering officer's limited scope —
Held further: The registering officer is neither an appellate authority nor a revisional authority and cannot reopen the findings of the competent authority. He may refuse registration only for want of a statutory permission, a subsisting prohibitory order, or non-compliance with the procedural requirements under the Registration Act, 1908. (¶22, 23)
Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 — s.11(4) — Beneficial legislation — Interference only if manifestly illegal —
Held further: The MOFA is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect home buyers, and the writ court should be slow to interfere with an order granting deemed conveyance unless it is manifestly illegal. The appellant's rights as a perpetual lessee having been protected, the appeal is dismissed. (¶35, 38)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 22Now, we deal with the scope of powers of the registration officer under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the 1908 Act’) under sub-section (5) of Section 11. As provided in sub-section (4) of Section 11, a certificate regarding the entitlement of the applicant to deemed conveyance has to be issued by the competent authority to the appropriate registration officer under the 1908 Act. After receiving the certificate, the registration officer is required to issue a summons to the promoter to show cause why such a unilateral instrument should not be registered as a deemed conveyance. After giving an opportunity of being heard to the promoter and after being satisfied that it was a fit case for registration of a unilateral conveyance, the registration officer can register the certificate as deemed conveyance. We may make it clear that the power conferred on the registration officer does not enable him to reopen or set aside the findings recorded by the competent authority while passing an order of grant of certificate. The registration officer is neither an appellate authority nor a revisional authority.
Paragraph 23The requirement of sub-section (5) of Section 11 has been incorporated to enable the registering officer to give an opportunity to the promoter, as the certificate issued by the competent authority is a “unilateral certificate”. In a given case, there may be a statutory requirement of obtaining prior permission or consent of an authority before the execution and registration of a conveyance. The registering officer cannot register the instrument unless such statutory consent/permission is produced. Therefore, he can refuse to register the certificate of deemed conveyance till the permission/consent is produced. There may be a prohibitory order of a competent court restraining the promoter from executing a conveyance. In such a case, the certificate cannot be registered as a conveyance till the restraint order is in force. Moreover, the registering officer must be satisfied that the requirements, such as payment of stamp duty and other procedural requirements under the 1908 Act, are complied with. This is the limited scope of adjudication by the registering officer under sub-section (5) of Section 11. The registering officer has no power to sit in appeal over the order of the competent authority while exercising the power under Section 11(5). He has no power to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the competent authority. He can refuse registration only on the grounds indicated above. Thus, the scope of the powers conferred on the registering officer is limited as indicated above. This is the only way sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 11 of the MOFA can be harmoniously construed.
Acts & Sections
s.11(3) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963s.11(4) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963s.11(5) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963s.5A Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963s.4 Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963s.10 Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963s.2(c) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963r.13 Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964Registration Act, 1908One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF v. AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →