Deemed conveyance and internal road disputes must be tried in civil court; IBC moratorium does not stop MOFA statutory action.

Disputes over internal roads, common areas and the effect of a conveyance clause required factual determination of sanctioned plans, development permissions and title, so they were not suitable for writ adjudication and had to be pursued before the civil court. A private agreement could not override statutory rights under the MOFA framework, and findings in deemed conveyance proceedings would not operate as res judicata in civil litigation. The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not prevent the Competent Authority from acting under Section 11 of MOFA, because deemed conveyance is a statutory, non-monetary function enforcing the obligation to convey title. The challenge to the deemed conveyance order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dispute regarding internal roads, common areas and the effect of the agreement clause could be adjudicated in writ proceedings or required determination before the civil court; (ii) Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred the Competent Authority from acting under Section 11 of the MOFA Act.

Issue (i): Whether the dispute regarding internal roads, common areas and the effect of the agreement clause could be adjudicated in writ proceedings or required determination before the civil court.

Analysis: The question whether internal roads form part of the common areas depends on sanctioned plans, development permissions and the contractual and statutory framework governing conveyance. Such issues are factual in nature and cannot be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction. A private contractual clause cannot override statutory rights under the MOFA framework, and the promoter can rely only on agreement terms that conform to the statutory scheme. The proper forum for resolving disputes about extent of land, title and ownership is a civil court, and the findings in the deemed conveyance proceedings do not operate as res judicata in such civil proceedings.

Conclusion: The dispute on internal roads and the scope of conveyance was not fit for adjudication in writ proceedings and the parties were relegated to civil remedies.

Issue (ii): Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred the Competent Authority from acting under Section 11 of the MOFA Act.

Analysis: Proceedings for deemed conveyance enforce a statutory obligation to convey title in specie and are not proceedings for recovery of money or enforcement of a debt. The Competent Authority discharges a statutory function and does not adjudicate complex title disputes. Statutory duties under the MOFA framework continue notwithstanding insolvency proceedings, and Section 14 does not disable the Authority from exercising its statutory powers.

Conclusion: The moratorium did not bar the Competent Authority from proceeding under Section 11 of the MOFA Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the deemed conveyance order failed, the writ petition was not entertained, and the parties were left to work out their title and ownership claims before the civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputes concerning title, extent of land and ownership in deemed conveyance matters are to be tried by the civil court, and the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not prevent a statutory authority from performing a non-monetary statutory function under MOFA.

---