Deemed conveyance proceedings are summary only; title disputes remain open, and the registration officer cannot act as an appellate authority.

Proceedings for deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act are summary in nature: the competent authority may verify documents, hear parties, and issue conveyance, but it cannot conclusively adjudicate disputed title, leaving civil remedies open. The registration officer's role under Section 11(5) is limited to checking statutory compliance for registration and does not include appellate, revisional, or review powers over the competent authority's certificate. On the facts, writ interference was unwarranted because the conveyance order was not manifestly illegal and the appellant's leasehold rights were preserved; the appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the competent authority under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act could grant deemed conveyance only in a summary proceeding and without conclusively deciding disputed title; (ii) whether the registration officer under Section 11(5) could reopen the competent authority's findings or exercise appellate powers; (iii) whether the deemed conveyance order could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the competent authority under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act could grant deemed conveyance only in a summary proceeding and without conclusively deciding disputed title.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 11(3) and 11(4), read with the relevant Rules, provides a summary mechanism for enforcing the promoter's obligation to convey title to the flat purchasers' society. The competent authority is required to verify documents, give hearing, record reasons, and act judicially, but the procedure excludes cross-examination and does not contemplate a full trial of title. The Court held that such proceedings are designed to secure speedy relief to flat purchasers and cannot finally and conclusively determine competing title claims, which remain open to be agitated in a civil suit.

Conclusion: The competent authority can issue deemed conveyance in summary proceedings, but it cannot conclusively adjudicate disputed title; the appellant's civil remedy remains open.

Issue (ii): Whether the registration officer under Section 11(5) could reopen the competent authority's findings or exercise appellate powers.

Analysis: Section 11(5) was construed as conferring only a limited post-certificate scrutiny to ensure that the unilateral instrument can lawfully be registered. The registration officer may examine compliance with statutory prerequisites such as permission, restraint orders, stamp duty, and procedural requirements, but cannot sit in appeal over, review, or set aside the competent authority's order. The earlier findings on entitlement are not reopenable at that stage.

Conclusion: The registration officer has no appellate or revisional power and cannot reopen the competent authority's findings.

Issue (iii): Whether the deemed conveyance order could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the facts of the case.

Analysis: On the facts, the dissolution deed and the later partnership arrangements showed that the flat purchasers' society was entitled to conveyance of the larger plot, while the appellant's rights over the Arun plot were protected through the continuing perpetual lease arrangement. The Court found that the impugned order safeguarded the appellant's contractual and proprietary interest and that the order was not manifestly illegal. Given the beneficial object of the statute and the availability of a civil suit, writ interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted and the deemed conveyance order was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, while the appellant's rights as perpetual lessee over the Arun plot were preserved and the conveyance in favour of the society was maintained subject to that protection.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act are summary in nature and cannot finally determine title disputes, and the registration officer under Section 11(5) cannot act as an appellate authority over the competent authority's certificate.

---