Chandrakant Sambhaji Chandane vs District Deputy Registrar Co. Operative Societies, Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chandrakant Sambhaji Chandane vs District Deputy Registrar Co. Operative Societies, Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order of the Competent Authority set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction; respondent No. 2 left at liberty to pursue a civil suit or other proceeding for enforcement of his alleged rights under the private agreement; writ petition disposed of with no costs; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA had jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to execute a deed of apartment in enforcement of a private agreement inter se two flat purchasers, where the promoter was not a party to the proceedings and had not signed the agreement.

Court's answer

Section 11 of MOFA applies when a promoter fails to convey title to the society or association of flat purchasers; the scheme of MOFA does not cover enforcement of private agreements between individual purchasers.

Ratio / Principle

On the facts found (promoter/developer not parties, promoter did not sign the agreement, agreement not an agreement for sale under Section 4 of MOFA and not registered), the respondent's claim did not fall within the scope of Section 11(3) and the Competent Authority could not assume jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to execute a deed of apartment; the petitioner's jurisdictional objection rests on a sound footing.

Key takeaways

The impugned order lacks legal authority; the Competent Authority exercised power beyond the statute and acted without jurisdiction; the impugned order is set aside.ratio¶3
MOFA Section 11(3) is not the correct forum for a dispute concerning a private agreement between flat purchasers; respondent No. 2 remains free to adopt the proper legal remedy, including filing a civil suit or other proceeding as permitted under law.ratio¶4
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respective claims; it has examined only the issue of jurisdiction in the context of Section 11(3) of MOFA.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MOFA — Jurisdiction of Competent Authority under Section 11(3) — Enforcement of private agreement between two flat purchasers — Promoter/developer neither party to the proceedings nor signatory to the agreement; agreement not an agreement for sale under Section 4 of MOFA and no evidence of registration — Held: Section 11 MOFA applies where a promoter fails to convey title to the society or association of flat purchasers, and the scheme does not cover enforcement of private agreements between individual purchasers; the Competent Authority could not assume jurisdiction to direct execution of a deed of apartment — Impugned order set aside as lacking legal authority / without jurisdiction — Liberty reserved to respondent No. 2 to pursue civil suit or other lawful remedy — No opinion on merits — Writ petition disposed of, no costs. (Paras 1–6)

4-wp6623-2024.doc

AGK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.6623 OF 2024

Chandrakant Sambhaji Chandane … Petitioner V/s. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune & Ors. … Respondents

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2026.01.21 15:40:01 +0530

Mr. Rahul Kadam for the petitioner. Mrs. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3- State.

Mr. Shailesh Kharat for respondent No.2.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2026

P.C.:

The petitioner has challenged an order under Section 11(3) of MOFA. The petitioner was the original opponent before the Competent Authority. The petitioner states that respondent No. 2, who is a private person, invoked Section 11(3) only to enforce a private agreement between the two parties. The petitioner states that MOFA does not give such power when the dispute concerns only private rights between two private individuals. The petitioner relies on the fact that Section 11(3) deals with execution of conveyance by a promoter in favour of flat purchasers. The petitioner contends that such provision cannot be used to enforce a private understanding between flat purchasers inter se.

1

4-wp6623-2024.doc

The facts show that the promoter or developer were not parties in the proceedings. The undisputed position is that the promoter did not sign the agreement relied upon by respondent No. 2. The agreement in question was between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 only. The material shows that such agreement was not an agreement for sale under Section 4 of MOFA. There is no evidence that the agreement was registered as required under Section 4. There is no evidence that the promoter had an obligation to convey rights under that agreement. The scheme of MOFA shows that Section 11 applies when a promoter fails to convey title to the society or association of flat purchasers. The scheme does not cover enforcement of private agreements between individual purchasers. Once these facts are seen, the Competent Authority could not assume jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to execute a deed of apartment. The respondent’s claim did not fall within the scope of Section 11(3). Therefore, the petitioner's objection on jurisdiction rests on a sound footing.

As a result, the impugned order lacks legal authority. The Competent Authority exercised power beyond the statute. The Court therefore sets aside the impugned order. The Court holds that the Competent Authority acted without jurisdiction.

The Court clarifies that respondent No. 2 may adopt the proper legal remedy for the enforcement of his alleged rights under the private agreement. The present order does not prevent respondent No. 2 from filing a civil suit or other proceeding as permitted under law. The Court only holds that MOFA Section 11(3) was not the correct forum for such dispute.

2

4-wp6623-2024.doc

The Court also clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respective claims. The Court has examined only the issue of jurisdiction in the context of Section 11(3) of MOFA.

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3