JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, petition is taken for final hearing and disposal. A. ISSUES 2. Petition raises two broad issues: (i) Whether the Competent Authority, while exercising power of issuing a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA, can take cognisance of an interest or a right in the conveyed land, which is created by a document other than the Agreement executed under Section 4? (ii) Given the settled position that validity of such interest or right in respect of conveyed land can only be agitated in a civil suit, while relegating parties to exercise their remedies before a Civil Court, whether incorporation of such interest or right in the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance should be retained or removed? B. THE CHALLENGE 3. The issue arise in the light of challenge set up by Petitioner-Society to the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City-4 and Competent Authority (Competent Authority) issued under the provisions of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). By the impugned Order and Certificate, the Society is actually granted unilateral deemed conveyance of the land and building as desired by the Society. However, the grievance of the Society is about incorporation of a caveat by the Competent Authority in the certificate whereby conveyance of the land is made subject to the right of access to the buildings on neighbouring plots, not forming part of the layout in which Society’s building is situated. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Competent Authority, while issuing certificate of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the MOFA, can take into consideration any document foreign to agreements executed with Flat purchasers under Section 4 of the MOFA and make the conveyance subject to the right created under such document. C. FACTS 4. M/s. Asian Constructions (Respondent No.13) undertook development in respect of Plots bearing CTS No.677/B/1, 677/B/3, 677/B/4 and 653/A/1B/1 at Village-Malad (East), Mumbai Suburban District situated at General Arun Kumar Vaidya Marg, Malad (East), Mumbai and it got a layout sanctioned for the aforestated plots (the said layout). C. FACTS 4. M/s. Asian Constructions (Respondent No.13) undertook development in respect of Plots bearing CTS No.677/B/1, 677/B/3, 677/B/4 and 653/A/1B/1 at Village-Malad (East), Mumbai Suburban District situated at General Arun Kumar Vaidya Marg, Malad (East), Mumbai and it got a layout sanctioned for the aforestated plots (the said layout). In pursuance of development permissions issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), has constructed multiple buildings on the layout. The Developer entered into agreements for sale of flats constructed in such buildings as per Section 4 of the MOFA. The Agreements reserved right of the Developer to revise/amend the layout plans as well as building plans and to consume additional FSI. It appears that six cooperative societies have been formed by the flat purchasers in the buildings so constructed on the said layout as under : i. Riddhi Gardens Building No. A1, A2 Co-operative Housing Society Limited on plot of land bearing CTS No. 677-B/4. ii. Riddhi Gardens Building M1-M2-M3 Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated on plot of land bearing CTS No. 653A/1B/1. iii. Riddhi Tower Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated on a plot of land bearing CTS No. 677B/3. iv. Rushi Heights situated on part of plot of land bearing CTS No. 677-B/1. v. Riddhi Garden H1 H2 Co-operative Housing Society Limited also situated on part of Land bearing CTS No. 677-B/1. vi. Riddhi Garden H3 H4 Co-operative Housing Society situated on a part of plot of land bearing CTS No. 677-B/1. 5. The said layout, on which buildings of the above six societies are situated, is common and there are several common facilities such as Recreational Ground, open spaces, internal roads etc for use and enjoyment by members of all six Societies. A 12 meter wide internal road connecting all buildings of the six societies with Goregaon-Mulund Link Road has been sanctioned in the said layout, which according to Petitioner-Society, is exclusively meant for the buildings of the six societies. The Occupancy Certificate in respect of Petitioner’s building was issued on 18 March 2004 and 10 March 2005. It appears that in similar manner, the Occupancy Certificates are issued in respect of the buildings of the other Societies as well. 6. It appears that there is adjoining plot bearing CTS No. 677/A, 676 and CTS No. 610/A/1/C earlier owned by Khanjhode family (the adjoining Plot). Respondent No.13 and M/s. Harasiddh Corporation are sister concerns. It appears that in similar manner, the Occupancy Certificates are issued in respect of the buildings of the other Societies as well. 6. It appears that there is adjoining plot bearing CTS No. 677/A, 676 and CTS No. 610/A/1/C earlier owned by Khanjhode family (the adjoining Plot). Respondent No.13 and M/s. Harasiddh Corporation are sister concerns. M/s. Harasiddh Corporation has obtained rights in respect of the said adjoining plot from Khanjhode family. It is Petitioner’s case that the said adjoining plot does not form part of the layout in which the buildings of the six societies are located. 7. On 19 May 2014, the partners of the Developer-Respondent No.13 executed a Deed of Right of Way with M/s. Harasiddh Corporation, under which Respondent No.13 was granted right of way through the internal road layout in which the buildings of the six societies are located. Petitioner-Society claims that it was not made aware about execution of such Deed of Right of Way. It is Petitioner’s contention that Respondent No.13 did not have a right to execute the Deed of Right of Way in favour of M/s. Harasiddh Corporation. 8. Since Respondent No.13 failed to convey land to the Society, a Notice was served on Respondent No.13 on 7 January 2022 seeking conveyance of the land and the buildings. The Petitioner-Society thereafter filed Application No. 135 of 2022 under Section 11 of the MOFA seeking unilateral deemed conveyance of the land and the building. Respondent No.13 appeared before the Competent Authority and in its reply, disclosed for the first time that it had executed a Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014 in favour of M/s. Harasiddh Corporation. Several pleadings were exchanged before the Competent Authority. It is Petitioner’s case that it received copy of alleged Deed of Right of Way along with the sur-rejoinder filed by Respondent No.13 in the year 2022. Said M/s. Harasiddh Corporation demolished the wall that stood between the said layout and the adjoining plot which was objected to by the Petitioner and other Societies. 9. It is Petitioner’s case that it received copy of alleged Deed of Right of Way along with the sur-rejoinder filed by Respondent No.13 in the year 2022. Said M/s. Harasiddh Corporation demolished the wall that stood between the said layout and the adjoining plot which was objected to by the Petitioner and other Societies. 9. The Competent Authority passed Order dated 8 February 2023 allowing application of Petitioner-Society granting unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of the land admeasuring 4248.17 sq.mtrs including internal roads and 55.67% proportionate undivided share, right, title and interest in recreational ground area subject to the right of access to the buildings of Societies as per the MCGM layout and also subject to right of way to adjoining properties for their land on CTS No. 679, 677A, 676 and 610/A/1C as per the Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014. Petitioner is aggrieved by prescription of condition of right of way to the adjoining plot occupiers while conveying the land and building and to that extent, the Order dated 8 February 2023 as well as the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance is challenged in the present petition. D. DEVELOPMENTS AFTER PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER 10. Some developments that have occurred after passing of the Order dated 8 February 2023 are also required to be noted. The Petitioner and other Societies in the layout have instituted S.C. Suit No.963 of 2023 before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi in March 2023 seeking a declaration that the Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014 is not binding upon the Petitioner and other Societies. Further declaration is sought that M/s. Harasiddh Corporation does not have any right, title or interest in the internal layout in addition to seeking various injunctive reliefs against the Developer and M/s. Harasiddh Corporation. 11. Respondent No.13 has opposed the petition by filing Affidavit-in-Reply highlighting the aspect of filing civil suit for agitating the same grievance which is sought to be raised in the petition. Respondent No.13 has contended that the 12 meter wide road in the said layout has always been used by various other societies on adjoining plots and by public at large. Respondent No.13 has opposed the petition by filing Affidavit-in-Reply highlighting the aspect of filing civil suit for agitating the same grievance which is sought to be raised in the petition. Respondent No.13 has contended that the 12 meter wide road in the said layout has always been used by various other societies on adjoining plots and by public at large. That a Federation of all the six societies has already been formed and the Petitioner-Society did not have right to seek conveyance of part of the property in layout when the Developer is willing to execute conveyance of the entire layout in favour of the Federation. 12. Jai Ganesh Slum Rehabilitation Authority Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. has filed Interim Application (Lodg.) No. 1560 of 2024 seeking to intervene in the petition. Jai Ganesh SRA Co-op. Hsg. Soc. is formed by occupiers of building constructed on the adjoining plot by M/s. Harasiddh Corporation. It is claimed by the intervenors that they have right to use the internal road in the layout of the Petitioner-Society. E. SUBMISSIONS 13. Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Society would submit that the Competent Authority has committed a gross error in granting the conveyance in favour of the Petitioner-Society subject to the Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014. That while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the MOFA, the Competent Authority exercises limited jurisdiction of ensuring that the right, title and interest of the promoter in the land and building is conveyed in favour of the Society in accordance with the Agreement under Section 4 of MOFA. That therefore the conveyance must be strictly in accordance with the covenants contained in the agreements executed with flat purchasers under Section 4 of MOFA. That the Competent Authority cannot take into consideration any documents executed by the Promoter with third parties after execution of agreements with flat purchasers under Section 4 of MOFA. That this is more particularly true when the subsequent document executed by Promoter in favour of third party is contrary to the covenants in the Section 4 agreement. That the Developer cannot take the route of Section 11 for the purpose of recognition of right allegedly created by document not forming part of Section 4-agreement. That this is more particularly true when the subsequent document executed by Promoter in favour of third party is contrary to the covenants in the Section 4 agreement. That the Developer cannot take the route of Section 11 for the purpose of recognition of right allegedly created by document not forming part of Section 4-agreement. That if the Order of the Competent Authority is allowed to stand, the right of way to the adjoining plots recognised in the impugned order will get embedded into title document of the Society, which will then not be in a position to assert its rights in the civil suit filed before the City Civil Court. That for enabling the Society to effectively contest the civil suit, the condition prescribed in the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance must be set aside and the issue of existence of alleged right of way needs to be kept open to be decided in the Civil Suit. 14. Mr. Khandeparkar would also submit that he is conscious of the settled position of law that complicated questions relating to title cannot be decided by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA and that the parties must get those issues determined before the Civil Court. That accordingly, the issue of existence of right of way must be decided in a Civil Suit by deleting the condition of right of way from the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance. According to him, if this is not done, the impugned order would be relied upon in Civil Suit to defeat the claim of Petitioner-Society. That Respondent No. 13 cannot exercise any rights in respect of the lands over which it does not have ownership. He would submit that it is necessary to delete the condition of right of way from the certificate of deemed conveyance so as to prevent both Respondent No.13 as well as M/s. Harasiddh Corporation or the flat occupiers in buildings constructed on the adjoining plots from relying upon the same to defeat Petitioner’s suit. 15. Mr. Khandeparkar would further submit that upon completion of construction in the layout, Respondent No.13 has divested himself of his right, title and interest in the layout. Once the layout is sanctioned and agreements are executed with flat purchasers, the Promoter loses any right to grant right of way to the adjoining plot. 15. Mr. Khandeparkar would further submit that upon completion of construction in the layout, Respondent No.13 has divested himself of his right, title and interest in the layout. Once the layout is sanctioned and agreements are executed with flat purchasers, the Promoter loses any right to grant right of way to the adjoining plot. That only six societies situated in the layout would ultimately become owners of the land in layout, who would be entitled to grant any rights in respect of the said land. That the Deed of Right of Way being ex-facie void, the Competent Authority ought not to have taken cognizance thereof. That its jurisdiction was restricted to take into consideration only the agreements executed under Section 4 and other documents relating to the layout. That the document executed with a third party ought to have been ignored by the Competent Authority while conducting limited enquiry under Section 11 of the MOFA. He would therefore pray for deletion of condition of right of way from the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance. 16. Mr. Khandeparkar would further submit that filing of civil suit by the Petitioner-Society in the City Civil Court would not come in the way of this Court entertaining the prayer of the Petitioner of deletion of condition of right of way. He would submit that the suit was required to be filed since M/s. Harasiddh Corporation illegally demolished the wall separating Petitioner’s layout with the adjoining plot. That though a prayer is incorporated in the suit for a declaration that the Deed of Right of Way is not binding on the Petitioner-Society, the said prayer would automatically get defeated in the event of retention of condition of right of way in the certificate of deemed conveyance, which would then get incorporated in the registered Conveyance Deed. On the other hand, if the condition of right of way is deleted from the certificate of deemed conveyance, the Defendants in the suit would still be entitled to prove before the City Civil Court that the Deed of Right of Way is valid and binding on the Society. That the deletion of condition of right of way from the certificate of deemed conveyance is sought for limited purpose of enabling the Petitioner-Society to effectively prosecute its suit before the City Civil Court. 17. Mr. That the deletion of condition of right of way from the certificate of deemed conveyance is sought for limited purpose of enabling the Petitioner-Society to effectively prosecute its suit before the City Civil Court. 17. Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel appearing for the Developer-Respondent No.13 would oppose the petition and submit that the petition filed by the Petitioner-Society cannot be entertained in the light of Civil Suit instituted by the Petitioner-Society before the City Civil Court seeking same prayer. Inviting my attention to the prayers made in S.C. Suit No. 963 of 2023, Mr. Kanade, would submit that Petitioner has specifically sought a declaration in the suit that the Deed of Right of Way is not binding on it and the other Societies. That if the present petition is allowed, the same would tantamount to Petitioner virtually succeeding in the suit. He would submit that it is well settled position of law that the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority cannot be extended to determine the complex questions such as validity of Deed of Right of Way and accordingly the Petitioner-Society has rightly instituted the suit to espouse the cause of action qua the Deed of Right of Way. He would therefore submit that the petition filed by the Petitioner need not be entertained and the petitioner needs to be relegated to the remedy of civil suit, which it has already instituted. 18. Mr. Kanade would further submit that the Deed of Right of Way has been validly executed by Respondent No.13 in favour of M/s. Harasiddh Corporation. That the flat purchasers were fully made aware of right of the Promoter to do so. He would rely upon Clauses (4) and (20) of the Flat Purchase Agreement in support of his contention. He would further submit that the said internal road has always been used by the adjoining plot owners/occupiers and the Society was aware about the same. He would submit that independent of the Deed of Right of Way, the easementary right of way can also get created by implication on account of continuous, long and uninterrupted use of the road. 19. Mr. He would submit that independent of the Deed of Right of Way, the easementary right of way can also get created by implication on account of continuous, long and uninterrupted use of the road. 19. Mr. Kanade, would further submit that the consideration of the documents by the Competent Authority while deciding the application under Section 11 is not restricted to Section 4 Agreements alone and that the Competent Authority is entitled to look into even other documents as held by this Court in Mazda Construction Company and Others V/s. Sultanabad Darshan CHS, 2012 SCC Online Bom 1266.. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Tushar Jivram Chauhan and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, 2015 (4) Mh.L.J. 867 ., Mr. Kanade would submit that the Competent Authority is entitled to take into consideration all relevant aspects/interests of all, which has been done in the present case. Mr. Kanade would pray for dismissal of the petition. 20. Mr Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor in support of Interim Application (Lodg.) No. 1560 of 2024 would also oppose the petition submitting that the members of the Intervenor-Society have been using the internal road of the said layout for several years. That before construction of the building, families of 129 slum dwellers were occupying the adjoining plot and have always used the 12 meter wide road. Inviting my attention to the Letter of Intent dated 21 May 2018 issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mr. Joshi would contend that the Letter of Intent has been issued by taking into consideration the 12 meter wide layout road. That if the said layout road is now denied to the buildings on adjoining plots, the development permissions would be endangered. That therefore any order passed in the petition would impact the rights of the Intervening-Society. Mr. Joshi would submit that the issues sought to be agitated by the Petitioner can be better adjudicated in a Civil Suit instituted by the Petitioner. He would pray for dismissal of the petition. F. REASONS AND ANALYSIS 21. To decide the issues, it would be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the impugned order of unilateral deemed conveyance is passed by the Competent Authority. F. 1 BACKGROUND IN WHICH IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED. 22. He would pray for dismissal of the petition. F. REASONS AND ANALYSIS 21. To decide the issues, it would be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the impugned order of unilateral deemed conveyance is passed by the Competent Authority. F. 1 BACKGROUND IN WHICH IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED. 22. It appears that in the present case, Respondent No. 13 undertook development of large tract of land in a phased manner. Petitioner-Society’s buildings are situated on Plot bearing CTS No. 677/B/4 admeasuring 4284.17 sq.mtrs. After completion of construction of buildings of Petitioner Society, the Occupancy Certificates in respect thereof were issued on 18 March 2004 and 10 March 2005. It appears that Respondent No. 13 was simultaneously developing the neighbouring Plots, which is the reason why he obtained consent from flat purchasers of Petitioner-Society building that the developer shall be entitled to jointly develop the adjoining lands. Accordingly, Respondent No.13 undertook development in respect of various adjoining lands and got sanctioned a common layout containing provision for internal roads, recreational grounds area etc., which was to be used by flat purchasers of various buildings to be constructed on such layout. It appears that there are two layout plans sanctioned on 13 March 2004 and 16 February 2006, which the Society relied upon in its application for deemed conveyance. 23. The layout plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on 16 February 2006 is placed on record at Exhibit-A. The common layout has amalgamated plots bearing CTS Nos. 677B/1 to 5, 653-A/1B/1, 2, 675B and 680 of Village-Malad. The said layout envisaged construction of seven buildings with several wings. The sanctioned layout contains inter-alia several recreational grounds as well as internal roads. For easy access to various buildings, a long 12 meter wide internal road is sanctioned in the said layout plan which connects all the buildings with Goregaon-Mulund Link Road. 24. It appears that Shri. Ravi Raghunath Kanjhode and others were owners of Plots bearing CTS No.677/E, 676 and 610/A/1C location of which is adjacent to the said layout. It appears that the said adjoining plot was encroached upon by slum dwellers. M/s. Harasiddh Corporation is a sister concern of Respondent No.13 wherein Mr. Mukesh Patel, who was the erstwhile partner of Respondent No.13 happens to be a partner. Mr. Khanjhode apparently executed a Development Agreement with M/s. Harasiddh Corporation for development of the adjoining plot. It appears that the said adjoining plot was encroached upon by slum dwellers. M/s. Harasiddh Corporation is a sister concern of Respondent No.13 wherein Mr. Mukesh Patel, who was the erstwhile partner of Respondent No.13 happens to be a partner. Mr. Khanjhode apparently executed a Development Agreement with M/s. Harasiddh Corporation for development of the adjoining plot. For the sake of clarity, it is reemphasized here that the Plots originally owned by Khanjhode family are referred as “the adjoining plot” whereas the layout in which the disputed internal road is situated is referred to as “the said layout”. It must also be noted here that ‘the adjoining plot’ does not form part of ‘the said layout’. It is also an admitted position that there is no amalgamation in respect of the adjoining plot with the plots in respect of which the said layout is sanctioned. However, because the adjacent plot was taken up for development by sister concern of Respondent No. 13, an internal arrangement was made by Respondent No.13 with M/s. Harasiddh Corporation by executing Deed recording Right of Grant of Way dated 19 May 2014. Shri. Mukund P. Patel and Mukul P. Patel, described in the Deed as partners of M/s. Asian Constructions and M/s. Bhavani Constructions, in their capacity as Granters, granted right of way to M/s. Harasiddh Corporation in respect of 12 meter wide internal road forming part of the said layout for access to the adjoining plot. Shri. Mukund P. Patel and Mukul P. Patel, described in the Deed as partners of M/s. Asian Constructions and M/s. Bhavani Constructions, in their capacity as Granters, granted right of way to M/s. Harasiddh Corporation in respect of 12 meter wide internal road forming part of the said layout for access to the adjoining plot. The relevant clause of Deed of Right of Way reads thus : NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that the Grantors do hereby and hereunder grant, convey, transfer, assign, assure and confirm unto and to the use of the Grantees full and free right and liberty of way and passage foe ingress unto and egress from for themselves their heirs, executors, administrators, tenants, servants, agents, guests and others authorized over a portion of the said properties described in the Schedule hereunder and which portion of the said properties described in the Schedule hereunder and which portion is marked from A to E and shaded in red, green, brown and blue on the plan hereto (herein referred to as the said road) to have and hold at all times hereafter and for all purposes to go, return, pass and repass, with or without cars, animals, trucks and other vehicles or carriages, laden or unladen and also to drive cattle and other beasts and take electric, telephone, gas, water, storm water and sewage connections over and under the same TOGETHER WITH further liberty for the Grantees and their heirs, executors, administrators, tenants, servants, agents, guests and others authorized persons AND WITH FURTHER LIBERTY to keep the said road or way in good and sufficient repair, and lighting and to make drains or channels or drain the surface water therefrom. 25. It appears that the adjoining plot has a separate and independent access from Goregaon-Mulund Link Road, which is 4.15 meters in width. On the strength of the Deed of Right of Way, M/s. Harasiddh Corporation submitted Slum Redevelopment Scheme on the adjoining plot to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, which issued Letter of Intent dated 21 May 2018 for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the adjoining plot. Para-6 of the Letter of Intent refers to both the roads i.e. existing access width of 4.15 meters and 12 meter wide layout road. Thus, it appears that the 12 meter wide layout road is taken into consideration as one of the factors by SRA for issuance of LOI. 26. Para-6 of the Letter of Intent refers to both the roads i.e. existing access width of 4.15 meters and 12 meter wide layout road. Thus, it appears that the 12 meter wide layout road is taken into consideration as one of the factors by SRA for issuance of LOI. 26. When Petitioner-Society filed application for issuance of unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building, it relied upon several documents such as its registration certificate, copy of Agreement executed with flat purchasers under Section 4 of MOFA, IOD, Commencement Certificate and Occupancy Certificate issued by MCGM, copy of layout plans dated 13 March 2004 and 16 February 2006, copy of Property card extract, copy of Area Entitlement Certificate etc. 27. Respondent No. 13 appeared before the Competent Authority, and according to the Petitioner-Society, for the first time disclosed that it is granted right of way in respect of 12 meter wide road in the said layout to the adjoining plot. It is Petitioner’s contention that copy of the Deed of Right of Way was placed on record for the first time by Respondent No.13 alongwith its sur-rejoinder. The Society contended before the Competent Authority that execution of the Deed of Right of Way was without any authority and that Respondent No.13 did not have any right to execute the same. The Society therefore urged before the Competent Authority not to take cognizance of the Deed of Right of Way by submitting that the limited jurisdiction of the Competent Authority did not include authority to adjudicate upon the effect of the Deed of Right of Way. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Competent Authority has recorded following findings in respect of the contentions of Respondent No.13 on the Deed of Right of Way : vi. As regards the contention of the opponent no. 17 that the Applicant has no right to claim right of conveyance of entire and which is contrary to the approved Layout and Deeds of grant of Right of Way, it is observed that, the building of the applicant society is part of an approved layout wherein separate sub plots connected with 12 meters wide road has been approved by MCGM. The said 12M wide road is giving access to buildings/societies in the layout viz. The said 12M wide road is giving access to buildings/societies in the layout viz. (i) Riddhi Gardens Building M1-M2-M3 CHS Ltd. i.e. Opponent No. 13 (ii) Riddhi Gardens Building A1-A2 CHS Ltd. (Applicant society) (iii) Riddhi Tower CHS Ltd. (iv) Riddhi Gardens Building H1-H2 CHS Ltd. & (v) Riddhi Gardens Building H3-H4 CHS Ltd. & (vi) Rushi Heights C.H.S. Ltd. However, in addition to this, through the said 12 meters wide road passing though the land area claimed by the applicant a right of way has been granted to M/S. Harasiddh Corporation for the obtaining property bearing CTS Nos.677A, 676 & 610A/1C. The grantees of the said Right of Way are using the said 12M wide road for many years for ingress, egress, construction, etc. The said Right of Way has been granted vide registered deed recording grant of right of way registered under No. DRL-1/4561/2014 dated 19th May 2014. As regard the contention of the applicant society, that this authority does not have the jurisdiction to grant right of way to any society, I have observed that the right of way already been granted earlier vide the aforesaid document and the said duly registered document cannot be disregarded. As also is held in the matter of Tushar Jivram Chauhan And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra that, "It is also necessary to consider the existing provisions of law including Development Rules, respective Municipal Council/Corporation Acts/Rules and Policies. In my view, all are interconnected and necessary at least for the Competent Authority to satisfy before passing the order of unilateral conveyance and/or deemed conveyance, as such order ultimately takes away all immovable property rights and interest of Promoters/Developers/Owners and create interest in Purchasers of the property in question." Therefore the contention of the applicant is devoid of merit. vii. Therefore since the entire layout has been approved by the MCGM and in the event if the access or right of way is disallowed it would violate the norms of the MCGM as also the rights created under the said right of way which is duly registered under No. BRL-1/4561/2014 dated 19th May 2014. Therefore it would just be proper in the interest of justice to grant conveyance subject to the right of way granted vide the aforesaid document and access as per the MCGM layout. 28. Therefore it would just be proper in the interest of justice to grant conveyance subject to the right of way granted vide the aforesaid document and access as per the MCGM layout. 28. By recording the above findings, the Competent Authority proceeded to grant unilateral deemed conveyance of land of 4248.17 sq.mtrs including internal road as well as 55.67% proportionate undivided share in recreational ground area to the Petitioner-Society subject to the right of access to the buildings of Society as per MCGM layout and subject to the right of way to the adjoining plot. This is how while granting unilateral deemed conveyance to the Petitioner-Society, the Competent Authority has made the same subject to the right of way to the adjoining plot. 29. Having considered the background in which the impugned order is passed by the Competent Authority, it is now necessary to consider the statutory framework of MOFA and to examine whether the order can be sustained within that statutory scheme. F.2 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 30. The statutory scheme of Section 11 of MOFA is such that an obligation is put on the Promoter to take all necessary steps to complete his title and then to convey to the cooperative society or company or association of apartments, his right, title and interest in the land and building by executing a document in that regard in accordance with the agreements executed under Section 4 of the MOFA. Thus, the obligation imposed on a Promoter under Section 11 of MOFA is to convey “his right, title and interest in the land and building” in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4. Use of the words “his right, title and interest” and “in accordance with agreement executed under Section 4”, make it clear that conveyance is required to be executed strictly in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 confers a right on a cooperative society to make an application before the Competent Authority seeking unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building in the event of the Promoter failing to discharge his obligation under sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) of Section 11 confers a right on a cooperative society to make an application before the Competent Authority seeking unilateral deemed conveyance of land and building in the event of the Promoter failing to discharge his obligation under sub-section (1). The Competent Authority, upon receipt of an application through members of cooperative society under sub-section 3, is required to make an enquiry under sub-section 4 by verifying the authenticity of the documents submitted, by giving the Promoter a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then issue a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance. Section 11 of MOFA reads thus : 11. Promoter to convey title, etc., and to execute documents, according to the agreement. (1) A promoter shall take all necessary steps to complete his title and convey to the organisation of persons, who take flats, which is registered either as a co-operative society or as a company as aforesaid or to an association of flat takers [or apartment owners] , his right, title and interest in the land and building, and execute all relevant documents therefor in accordance with the agreement executed under section 4 and if no period for the execution of the conveyance is agreed upon, he shall execute the conveyance within the prescribed period and also deliver all documents of title relating to the property which may be in his possession or power. (2) It shall be the duty of the promoter to file with the Competent Authority, within the prescribed period, a copy of the conveyance executed by him under sub-section (1). (2) It shall be the duty of the promoter to file with the Competent Authority, within the prescribed period, a copy of the conveyance executed by him under sub-section (1). (3) If the promoter fails to execute the conveyance in favour of the Cooperative society formed under section 10 or, as the case may be, the Company or the association of apartment owners, as provided by sub-section (1), within the prescribed period, the members of such Co-operative society or, as the case may be, the Company or the association of apartment owners may, make an application, in writing, to the concerned Competent Authority accompanied by the true copies of the registered agreements for sale, executed with the promoter by each individual member of the society or the Company or the association, who have purchased the flats and all other relevant documents (including the occupation certificate, if any), for issuing a certificate that such society, or as the case may be, Company or association, is entitled to have an unilateral deemed conveyance, executed in their favour and to have it registered. (4) The Competent Authority, on receiving such application, within reasonable time and in any case not later than six months, after making such enquiry as deemed necessary and after verifying the authenticity of the documents submitted and after giving the promoter a reasonable opportunity of being heard, on being satisfied that it is a fit case for issuing such certificate, shall issue a certificate to the Sub-Registrar or any other appropriate Registration Officer under the Registration Act, 1908, certifying that it is a fit case for enforcing unilateral execution, of conveyance deed conveying the right, title and interest of the promoter in the land and building in favour of the applicant, as deemed conveyance. (5) On submission by such society or as the case may be, the Company or the association of apartment owners, to the Sub-Registrar or the concerned appropriate Registration Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, the certificate issued by the Competent Authority alongwith the unilateral instrument of conveyance, the Sub-Registrar or the concerned appropriate registration Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, issue summons to the promoter to show cause why, such unilateral instrument should not be registered as 'deemed conveyance' and after giving the promoter and the applicants a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may on being satisfied that it was fit case for unilateral conveyance, register that instrument as, ' deemed conveyance '.]. 31. Thus plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of MOFA would indicate that conveyance must be strictly in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4. Section 4(1) and (1A) of MOFA reads thus: 4. Promoter before accepting advance payment or deposit to enter into agreement and agreement to be registered. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a block or building of flats all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, shall, before, he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than 20 per cent, of the sale price enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such flats, and the agreement shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Registration Act, 1908" and such agreement shall be in the prescribed form. (1A) The agreement to be prescribed under sub-section (1) shall contain inter alia the particulars as specified in clause (a); and to such agreement there shall be attached the copies of the documents specified in clause (b)- (a) particulars- (i) if the building is to be constructed, the liability of the promoter to construct it according to the plans and specifications approved by the local authority where such approval is required under any law for the time being in force; (ii) the date by which the possession of the flat is to be handed over to the purchaser; (iii) the extent of the carpet area of the flat including the area of the balconies which should be shown separately; (iv) the price of the flat including the proportionate price of the common areas and facilities which should be shown separately, to be paid by the purchaser of flat; and the intervals at which instalments thereof may be paid; (v) the precise nature of the organisation to be constituted of the persons who have taken or are to take the flats; (vi) the nature, extent and description of limited common areas and facilities; (vii) the nature, extent and description of limited common areas and facilities, if any; (viii) percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appertaining to the flat agreed to be sold; (ix) statement of the use for which the flat is intended and restriction on its use, if any; (x) percentage of undivided interests in the limited common areas and facilities, if any, appertaining to the flat agreed to be sold; (b) copies of documents, (i) the certificate by an Attorney-at-law or Advocate under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 3 ; (ii) Property Card or extract of Village Forms VI or VII and XII or any other relevant revenue record showing the nature of the title of the promoter to the land on which the flats are constructed or are to be constructed; (iii) the plans and specifications of the flat as approved by the concerned local authority.] 32. In the exercise of powers under Section 15 of MOFA, Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction etc.) Rules, 1964 (MOFA Rules) have been made and the Rules prescribe the form of Agreement to be executed under Section 4 of MOFA. In the exercise of powers under Section 15 of MOFA, Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction etc.) Rules, 1964 (MOFA Rules) have been made and the Rules prescribe the form of Agreement to be executed under Section 4 of MOFA. Rule 5 provides for execution of agreement in Form V containing the particulars specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1A) of Section 4. Form V prescribes the model form of agreement to be entered between the promoter and flat purchasers in which the promoter is required to agree to transfer to the society within four months of its registration, all the right, title and interest of the vendors/lessors/original owner/promoter in the land together with the building by executing necessary conveyance. Rule 5 of MOFA Rules reads thus: 5. Particulars to be contained in agreement.-The promoter shall, before accepting any advance payment or deposit, enter into an agreement with the flat purchaser in Form V containing the particulars specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1A) of section 4 and shall attach thereto the copies of the documents specified in clause (b) of the said sub-section (1A). 33. Clause 13 of Model Form of Agreement under Form V of MOFA Rules 1964 reads thus: 13. Unless it is otherwise agreed to by and between the parties hereto the Promoter shall, within four months of registration of the Society or Limited Company, as aforesaid cause to be transferred to the Society or Limited Company all the right, title and the interest of the Vendor/Lessor/Original Owner/Promoter and/or the owners in the aliquot part of the said land together with the building/s by obtaining/or executing the necessary conveyance/and or assignment of lease of the said land (or to the extent as may be permitted by the authorities) and the said building in favour of such Society or Limited Company, as the case may be such conveyance/assignment of lease shall be in keeping with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 34. Thus under Section 11(1) of MOFA, a promoter is under obligation to transfer his right, title and interest in the land and building in accordance with Agreement executed under Section 4, which in turn needs to be executed in Form V as prescribed in Rule 5 of MOFA Rules. 34. Thus under Section 11(1) of MOFA, a promoter is under obligation to transfer his right, title and interest in the land and building in accordance with Agreement executed under Section 4, which in turn needs to be executed in Form V as prescribed in Rule 5 of MOFA Rules. Something which is not provided in the Agreement under Section 4 need not be conveyed by the Promoter under sub-section (1) and cannot be conveyed by the Competent Authority under sub-sections (3) and (4). F.3 COVENANTS OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED UNDER SECTION 4 OF MOFA 35. The issue that the Petitioner-Society raised in the present petition is about the grant of unilateral deemed conveyance contrary to the agreement executed under Section 4. To examine the contention raised on behalf of the Society, it would be necessary to consider the relevant covenants of the Agreements executed by Respondent No.13 with the flat purchasers. Copy of Agreement for Sale dated 7 November 2001 executed with Shri. Sudhir J. Jha and Smt. Pratima S. Jha is placed on record. Clause-12 of the Agreement provides for formation of a Cooperative Society and reads thus : 12. The Flat Purchaser along with other purchasers of Flats in the building shall join in forming and registering the society or a Limited Company to be known by such name as the Promoters may decide and for this purpose also from time to time sign and execute the application for registration and/or membership and other papers and documents necessary for the formation and the registration of the Society or Limited Company and for becoming a member, including the bye-laws of the proposed Society and duly fill in, sign and return to the Promoters within seven days of the same being forwarded by the Promoters to the Flat Purchaser under section 10 of the said Act within the time prescribed by Rule 8 of the Maharashtra ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of Construction, Sale Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964, No objection shall be taken by the Flat Purchaser if any changes or modifications are made in the draft bye-laws or the Memorandum and/or articles of association, as may be required by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Registrar of Companies, as the case may be, or any other Competent Authority. 36. 36. Clause-13 of the Agreement imposes an obligation on the Promoter for transfer to the Apex Society or a Limited Company, all right, title and interest of the original land owners and promoters in the land together with the buildings by executing necessary conveyance thereof. Clause-13 reads thus : 13. It is hereby agreed by and between the Parties hereto that the Promoter shall cause to be transferred to the Apex Society or Limited Company all the right, title and the interest of the Original Owner and the Promoters in the said land together with the building/s by obtaining or executing the necessary conveyance of the land and the said building in favour of such Apex Society or Limited Company, as the case may be. Such conveyance shall be in keeping with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 37. Mr. Kanade and Mr. Joshi have sought to rely upon Clauses-4 and 20 of the Agreement, which read thus : 4. The Promoters shall be entitled to develop the adjoining properties with the said land by way of joint development and revise/amend the layout plans and building plans and consume the additional FSI available by way of joint development. the Promoters, at any time in the future shall be entitled to revise/amend/alter the layout plans, building plans and specifications as permitted under D.C.Rules. the Flat Purchaser hereby expressly consent to the promoters redesigning any building or buildings and redesigning, realigning and reconstructing other common areas such as internal roads, compound walls, gardens, recreational areas, main entrances, building entrances, water tanks, septic tanks, water supply lines, drainage lines, electric supply cables, telephone cables etc. 20. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to be nor shall be construed as a grant, demise or assignment in law of the said Flats or of the said land and building or any part thereof. The Flat purchaser shall have no claim save and expect in respect of the Flat hereby agreed to be sold to him and all open spaces, parking spaces, lobbies, staircases, terraces, recreation spaces etc. will remain the property of the Promoters and the promoters alone shall be entitled to sell, use the same. 38. The Flat purchaser shall have no claim save and expect in respect of the Flat hereby agreed to be sold to him and all open spaces, parking spaces, lobbies, staircases, terraces, recreation spaces etc. will remain the property of the Promoters and the promoters alone shall be entitled to sell, use the same. 38. Thus under Clause-4 of the Agreement, the Promoter reserved a right to develop the adjoining properties with the land taken for construction of building of Petitioner-Society by way of joint development and to revise/amend the layout plans and building plans and consume the additional FSI available by way of joint development. Consent of the flat purchasers was obtained for redesigning any building or in relegating any common areas such as internal road, gardens, compounds, recreational areas etc. Under Clause-20, it was agreed between the parties that nothing contained in the Agreement was to be construed as grant, demise or assignment in law of the flat or the land or building or any part thereof and the flat purchaser was not to claim any right in respect of open spaces, parking spaces, lobbies, staircases, terrace, recreational spaces etc. which was to remain property of the Promoters and the Promoters right to sell and use the same was recognised. F.4 PERMISSIBILITY FOR COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER DOCUMENT OF TITLE CREATING RIGHT NOT RECOGNISED UNDER AGREEMENT EXECUTED UNDER SECTION 4 OF MOFA 39. Turning back to the statutory framework of MOFA, the conveyance by the Promoter under sub-section (1) or unilateral deemed conveyance by the Competent Authority under sub-sections(3) and (4) of Section 11 is in respect of Promoter’s right, title and interest in the land and building and the same has to be ‘in accordance with the Agreement executed under Section 4’. The short issue that therefore arises is whether the right of way recognised by the Competent Authority in the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance to the adjoining plot forms part of Agreement executed under Section 4 and in the event it does not form part of such agreement, whether it is open for the Competent Authority to take cognizance of something which does not form part of Section 4 Agreement. I have already reproduced the relevant covenants of the flat purchase agreement executed by Respondent No.13 under Section 4 of MOFA. I have already reproduced the relevant covenants of the flat purchase agreement executed by Respondent No.13 under Section 4 of MOFA. I do not find any covenant in the Agreement which empowered Respondent No.13 to grant any right of way to the adjoining plot. Though Mr. Kanade and Mr. Joshi have placed reliance on Clauses-4 and 20 of the MOFA Agreement, I do not see any authority conferred on Respondent No.13 under those clauses to grant any right of way in respect of the said layout to the adjoining plot. Use of the words “the adjoining properties” in Clause-4 of the Agreement refers to the other buildings within the layout. The said words do not apply for development on plots not forming part of the layout. At the time of execution of the flat purchase Agreements, Respondent No.13 had undertaken development of several plots which have amalgamated into a common layout and Clause-4 of the Agreement authorised it to develop other plots within the layout by amending the layout as per the requirements. Clause-4 therefore cannot be read to mean an authorisation by the flat purchasers to the Promoter to sell any right, title and interest in respect of the layout to a third parties. Even if Clause-20 is taken into consideration, the same did not authorise Respondent No.13 to grant any right of way to the adjoining plot. 40. Grant of easement or a right of way is one of the several rights which an owner can assign in respect of an immovable property. It is capable of being assigned and monetised. An immovable property consists of bouquet of rights and each of such right can be exercised by the owner as well as each such right is capable of being monetized. Easement is one such right which the owner can assign in favour of another person. The issue here is who continued to remain the owner of the internal road within the layout, for creation of easementary right in respect thereof in favour of owners or occupiers of adjoining plot? 41. In the present case, the easementary right of way is contractually assigned by partners of Respondent No.13 to M/s. Harasiddh Corporation by Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014. The said Deed is executed well after the development in respect of the said layout was complete. 41. In the present case, the easementary right of way is contractually assigned by partners of Respondent No.13 to M/s. Harasiddh Corporation by Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014. The said Deed is executed well after the development in respect of the said layout was complete. It is undisputed position that the Occupancy Certificate in respect of Petitioner’s building was issued on 13 March 2004 and 10 March 2005 whereas the Deed of Right of Way is executed subsequently on 19 May 2014. The agreements executed with the flat purchasers under Section 4 of MOFA do not grant or recognise any right of way from the layout to the adjoining plot. 42. Since, agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA with flat purchasers did not recognise any easementary right in the land covered by the said layout in favour of owner/occupiers of adjoining plot, incorporation of the condition of right of way in the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance by the Competent Authority is in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 11. In my view, therefore it was not permissible for the Competent Authority to take cognizance of something which does not form part of Agreement executed under Section 4. The remit of enquiry to be conducted by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the MOFA is limited. It has to only take into consideration the Agreement executed under Section 4 and convey to the society, Promoter’s right, title and interest in the land and building. 43. Use of the words ‘all other relevant documents’ under sub-section (3) of Section 11 would not include documents unrelated with the Agreement executed under Section 4 or documents unrelated with the building of the Society. The expression ‘all other relevant documents’ would include commencement certificate, occupancy certificate, layout plan, society’s registration certificate, architect area certificate etc. If a promoter unauthorisedly sells part of the land which he is bound to convey under Section 11, the Competent Authority is not supposed to take cognizance of that document of sale while issuing certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance. The expression ‘all other relevant documents’ would include commencement certificate, occupancy certificate, layout plan, society’s registration certificate, architect area certificate etc. If a promoter unauthorisedly sells part of the land which he is bound to convey under Section 11, the Competent Authority is not supposed to take cognizance of that document of sale while issuing certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance. If the Competent Authority is permitted to take cognizance of such documents subsequently executed by the Promoter in favour of third parties, the same would dilute the obligations put on the Promoter under Section 11(1) as well as the duty imposed upon the Competent Authority under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 11 of MOFA. 44. To illustrate, in respect of a single plot and a single building, a Promoter may, after execution of Section 4 Agreements with flat purchasers, seek to wriggle out of obligation under Section 11(1) and unauthorisedly sale to third parties, portion of the land, in respect of which building plans are sanctioned. During the time gap between issuance of Occupancy Certificate and grant of conveyance/deemed conveyance, the promoter may unauthorisedly sale a small corner of the land to third party. Does it mean that the Competent Authority has to take cognizance of such unauthorised sale documents and deduct the sold area from certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance? The answer to my mind appears to be in the negative. In the limited remit of enquiry, the Competent Authority will have to convey the entire land as per the Agreement executed under Section 4. 45. Mr. Kanade has relied upon judgment of this Court in Mazda Construction Company, wherein a Singe Judge of this Court (S. C. Dharmadhikari J.) has observed in para-20 of the judgment as under: 20. To my mind, reading of Sections 10 and 11 together with Section 5A would make it amply clear that what is to be performed by the Competent Authority is a duty and obligation which the promoter is to perform in law. That is to convey the title and execute the documents according to the agreement. If that is the duty which is to be performed by the promoter, but which he fails to perform, then, the Competent Authority steps in to fulfill it. That is to convey the title and execute the documents according to the agreement. If that is the duty which is to be performed by the promoter, but which he fails to perform, then, the Competent Authority steps in to fulfill it. That is a duty towards the flat purchasers and which duty cannot be avoided except at the cost and pains of legal proceedings including a criminal prosecution. In these circumstances and when sections 10 and 11 are read together and harmoniously with the preceding sections including those which contain the particulars of the agreement, then, it becomes absolutely clear that what has to be conveyed even by a deemed conveyance, which is an unilateral act and which enables the flat purchasers to acquire the Promoter's right, title and interest in the land and the building. Therefore, it cannot be said that an unilateral deemed conveyance conveys something more than what belongs to the Promoter. Section 11(1) provides for conveyance of Promoter's right, title and interest in the land and building as is clear from the words “his right, title and interest....” appearing therein. I am not in agreement with Mr. Samdani that there are no guidelines guiding and enabling the Competent Authority to grant a deemed conveyance and therefore, the powers are likely to be abused or exercised arbitrarily in every such case. There are inbuilt checks and safeguards inasmuch as what is to be issued is a certificate entitling a unilateral deemed conveyance. It is not a document which stands alone or is a distinct transaction. It is a grant or conveyance in terms of what the agreement between parties stipulates and provides for being conveyed to the flat purchasers. Therefore, the Applicant is permitted to apply to the Competent Authority u/s 11(3) and such application is to be accompanied by true copies of the registered agreements for sale executed by the Promoter with each individual member/flat purchaser and other relevant documents. It is to further that and to insist on the promoters fulfilling their obligations within the prescribed period, but noticing that their failure has resulted in hardship to flat purchasers, that the Legislature has stepped in. To my mind, this is not a power which can be exercised by the Competent Authority in ignorance of or by brushing aside the earlier provisions and contents of the agreement with the flat purchasers. To my mind, this is not a power which can be exercised by the Competent Authority in ignorance of or by brushing aside the earlier provisions and contents of the agreement with the flat purchasers. Equally, the Competent Authority has to take into consideration the contents of other relevant documents. (emphasis supplied) 46. In Mazda Construction Company, this Court has held that conveyance has to be granted by the Competent Authority strictly in accordance with the agreement executed with the flat purchasers. The observations of this Court that “Equally, the Competent Authority has to take into consideration the contents of other relevant documents” cannot be read to mean that documents unconnected with or contrary to Section 4 Agreement can be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority. To put it in other words, the route of Section 11 MOFA cannot be taken by asserter of a right, independent of Section 4 Agreement, to get the same established from the competent authority, who lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the existence of such right. 47. Mr. Kanade has relied upon judgment of single Judge of this Court in Tushar Jivram Chauhan (supra) and on which reliance is also placed by the Competent Authority in its Order. In para-22 of the judgment, the Single Judge of this Court has held as under : 22. The property of such nature, where tenants are occupying the premises on same layout, their interest cannot be restricted in such fashion by giving/granting deemed conveyance of the land even beneath their respective tenanted flat/apartment. The common areas, utility/facility of layout plot cannot be restricted for future, so also the undivided interest. The Competent Authority needs to consider all such related aspects/interest of all, who occupied the portion of flat/apartment on the common layout/plot, and at least must provide the reasons, if still wants to grant such unilateral conveyance. (emphasis & underlining supplied) 48. In my view, reliance by Respondent No.13 on judgment in Tushar Jivram Chauhan, far from assisting it, actually militates against respondent No. 13. In para-22 of the judgment, the Single Judge of this Court (A.V. Mohta, J.) has held that interest of all persons occupying the premises on “same layout” must be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority. In my view, reliance by Respondent No.13 on judgment in Tushar Jivram Chauhan, far from assisting it, actually militates against respondent No. 13. In para-22 of the judgment, the Single Judge of this Court (A.V. Mohta, J.) has held that interest of all persons occupying the premises on “same layout” must be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority. The judgment in no way seeks to suggest that interest of third parties is required to be taken into consideration while making limited enquiry under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of MOFA. M/s. Harasiddh Corporation as well as the occupiers on adjoining plot are clearly third parties having no concern with the obligation imposed by Section 11(1) on the Promoter to convey his right, title and interest in favour of the Society in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4. Therefore it was not at all necessary for the Competent Authority to consider their interests while deciding Society’s application for deemed conveyance. F.5 RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF CONDITION OF RIGHT OF WAY FROM CERTIFICATE OF DEEMED CONVEYANCE WHILE RELEGATING PARTIES BEFORE CIVIL COURT 49. I am conscious of the fact that this Court has repeatedly taken a view that the Competent Authority is not supposed to adjudicate upon the issue of title nor can decide complicated questions of law or facts while conducting enquiry under Section 11 of MOFA. Reference in this regard can be made to the Judgments of this Court in Mazda Construction Company (supra), ACME Enterprises and Another Vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Others 2023 4 AIR Bom. R. 817 and Tirupati Shopping Centre Premises Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shabayesha Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 Mh.L.J. 557. Therefore the issue that arises for consideration is whether to remove or retain the condition of right of way in the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance while relegating the parties before civil court for deciding the validity of Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014. 50. In the present case, the right of way is created in favour of third parties by Respondent No. 13 after execution of Section 4 Agreements and after issuance of occupancy certificate for the buildings on the said layout. 50. In the present case, the right of way is created in favour of third parties by Respondent No. 13 after execution of Section 4 Agreements and after issuance of occupancy certificate for the buildings on the said layout. In my view therefore, if the grantee of right of way wants to assert any right on the strength of Deed of Right of Way executed in its favour by the Promoter, the grantee will have to file appropriate civil proceedings to seek a declaration in respect of such Deed. The Society cannot be driven to the Civil Court in every case to ensure that it first gets nullified of the unauthorised rights created by the Promoter in favour of third parties and then apply for unilateral deemed conveyance of the land. It is not Society’s obligation to first get all the unauthorised encumbrances created by the Promoter on the land cleared before filing of application to the Competent Authority for unilateral deemed conveyance of the land. On the contrary, the person who takes the risk of purchasing portion of the land or a right in land which already forms part of agreement executed under Section 4 of MOFA, such purchaser will have to get his right adjudicated from a Civil Court. The Cooperative society is not expected to approach the Civil Court in every case where the Promoter unauthorisedly creates right in respect of the land covered under Section 4 in favour of third parties. In my view, this interpretation of Section 11 is necessary, or else the very objective behind Section 11 would fail. Promoters would go on creating unauthorised rights in favour of third parties in the land in respect of which he has an obligation under Section 11 to convey right, title and interest in favour of the Society. The Society will thereafter have to indulge in endless litigation to ensure that all the unauthorised rights created by the Promoter are first nullified before it gets conveyance of land in its favour. That is not the scheme of Section 11 nor the objective of the Act. 51. Both Mr. Kanade and Mr. Joshi have attempted to impress upon me that the Society must approach Civil Court to challenge the Deed of Right of Way and according to them, the Society has indeed filed a Suit seeking a declaration to that effect. That is not the scheme of Section 11 nor the objective of the Act. 51. Both Mr. Kanade and Mr. Joshi have attempted to impress upon me that the Society must approach Civil Court to challenge the Deed of Right of Way and according to them, the Society has indeed filed a Suit seeking a declaration to that effect. They have therefore submitted that the order of the Competent Authority must be allowed to operate till such time the Civil Court adjudicates upon validity of Deed of Right of Way. The argument, no doubt, appears attractive in the first blush. However, seen in the context of the objective behind enactment of MOFA, it is totally counterproductive to such objective. As observed above, the Promoter is not expected to create any rights in favour of third parties in the land in respect of which agreements are executed with flat purchasers under Section 4. If he still chooses to do so, the assignee of such rights takes the risk and it would be for the assignee to seek declaration in respect of the assignment in his favour by approaching the Civil Court. Once an agreement under Section 4 of the MOFA is executed in favour of flat purchasers and once Occupancy Certificate is issued in respect of the building, the Promoter gets divested and denuded of his right, title and interest in the land and he is under obligation under Section 11(1) to convey his right, title and interest in the land and building in favour of the Society. Such divesting has to be assumed, subject ofcourse to the terms and conditions of the agreement, as the time gap of 4 months prescribed under Rule 9 of MOFA Rules between formation of society and execution of conveyance under Section 11 cannot and does not mean that the promoter still retains ownership in the land. If the promoter chooses to assign a right in the land in favour of a third party after execution of Section 4 agreement and after issuance of Occupancy Certificate, the Society cannot be driven to the Civil Court, thereby rendering otiose the remedy granted under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 11 to seek unilateral deemed conveyance from the Competent Authority. 52. 52. In the present case, Society was required to file a Civil Suit mainly against M/s. Harasiddh Corporation on account of accrual of cause of action on account of demolition of compound wall dividing the said layout and the adjoining plot. That Suit is aimed essentially against M/s. Harasiddh Corporation and societies/flat occupiers situated in adjoining plot. The Society could not have sought any declaratory or injunctive reliefs from the Competent Authority against M/s. Harasiddh Corporation or against occupiers of adjoining plots. In my view, therefore mere filing of Civil Suit by Petitioner-Society in the City Civil Court cannot be a ground for declining a relief in favour of the Society in the present petition. 53. One of the issues before the Civil Court is about validity of the Deed of Right of Way. In my view, the said issue can be decided by the Civil Court even after deletion of condition of right of way from the certificate of deemed conveyance. Mr. Khandeparkar is right in contending that presence of condition of right of way in the certificate of deemed conveyance would result in translation of that condition in the registered deed of conveyance, which would then be relied upon by the Defendants in the suit to seek dismissal thereof. On the contrary, despite deletion of condition of right of way from the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance, the parties in the suit would still be in a position to prove validity or invalidity of the Deed of Right of Way. In the event, the Civil Court upholds the Deed of Right of Way, the document of conveyance registered in favour of the Society would be subject to the decree of the Civil Court. On the other hand, if the Civil Court invalidates the Deed of Right of Way, the conveyance of land and building in favour of the Society would be unconditional. In my view therefore, deletion of condition of right of way from the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance will not affect the rights and contentions of either of the parties before the Civil Court. On the contrary, presence of the said condition may prejudice the Plaintiff in the suit. F.6 UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE IN FAVOUR OF OTHER SOCIETY IN THE SAID LAYOUT 54. There is yet another factor which must be taken note of. It appears that another Society in the same layout viz. On the contrary, presence of the said condition may prejudice the Plaintiff in the suit. F.6 UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE IN FAVOUR OF OTHER SOCIETY IN THE SAID LAYOUT 54. There is yet another factor which must be taken note of. It appears that another Society in the same layout viz. Ridhi Garden Building Nos.M1-M2-M3 Co-op. Hsg. Soc. filed application under Section 11 of MOFA for issuance of certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance. The said application came to be allowed by the Competent Authority by Order dated 15 November 2021. Perusal of the said Order and the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance would show that no condition about right of way is incorporated while conveying the land and building in favour of that Society. The Certificate issued in favour of Ridhi Garden Building Nos.M1-M2-M3 Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. reads thus : CERTIFICATE In exercise of the powers conferred on me U/s 5 (A) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, 1, Dr. Kishor Mande, Competent Authority & District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4), hereby certify that "Riddhi Garden Building M1-M2-M3 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." is entitled to have Unilateral Deemed Conveyance of land admeasuring 3384.15 sq. mtrs and proportionate undivided share in R.G. admeasuring 597.20 sq. mtrs out of total land area admeasuring 4055.2 sq. mtrs. bearing CTS Nos. 653/A/1/B/1 of village- Malad(East), Taluka-Malad, on Sub Plot C, bearing correspondence Survey No. 256, Hissa No.4 in the Mumbai Suburban District within the Registration District and Sub-District of Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban alogwith the building situated thereon. 55. Thus in favour of two societies situated in the same layout, which are entitled to use the same 12 meter wide internal road, two distinct certificates are issued by the Competent Authority, one is with condition of right of way and the other is without any such condition. This is yet another factor why the condition of right of way deserves to be deleted from the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance issued in favour of the Petitioner-Society. It appears that the Order dated 15 November 2021 passed in the case of Ridhi Gardens Building Nos.M1-M2-M3 Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. has been challenged by the Promoter in a separate Writ Petition. It would be appropriate that the promoter and all societies agitate the issue of validity of Deed of Right of Way in the pending Civil Suit. F.7 CONCLUSION 56. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. has been challenged by the Promoter in a separate Writ Petition. It would be appropriate that the promoter and all societies agitate the issue of validity of Deed of Right of Way in the pending Civil Suit. F.7 CONCLUSION 56. After considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view that the Competent Authority could not have taken cognisance of Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014, as the right sought to be created by it does not find mention in the agreements executed by the promoter under Section 4 of MOFA. I therefore find prescription of condition of right of way for adjoining plot in the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance issued to Petitioner-society to be indefensible. I am also of the view that though the issue of validity or otherwise of Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014 needs to be adjudicated by the Civil Court, the condition of right of way needs to be deleted from the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance issued in Petitioner-Society’s favor, so as to enable it to effectively prosecute its Suit. 57. It must however be clarified here that the observations in the judgment about authorisation of the promoter to execute the Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014 are made only from the perspective jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue certificate of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA. The same shall not be construed to mean adjudication of rights and entitlements of parties, if any, created by the said Deed. All issues on the validity of the said Deed of Right of Way are kept open, to be adjudicated in the pending civil suit between the parties. G. ORDER : 58. The petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following Order : (i) Order dated 8 February 2023 as well as the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance dated 8 February 2023 issued by the Competent Authority are set aside. (ii) Within 4 weeks, the Competent Authority shall issue a fresh certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of the Petitioner-Society without imposing any condition in respect of right of access to the adjoining plot. (ii) Within 4 weeks, the Competent Authority shall issue a fresh certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of the Petitioner-Society without imposing any condition in respect of right of access to the adjoining plot. (iii) All rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the validity of Deed of Right of Way dated 19 May 2014 executed between Respondent No.13 and M/s. Harasiddh Corporation are left open to be decided in S.C. Suit No. 963 of 2023 pending before the City Civil Court, which shall proceed to decide the suit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment. (iv) The conveyance of land and building in favour of the Petitioner-Society shall be subject to the Decree that would be passed by the City Civil Court in S.C. Suit No. 963 of 2023. 59. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. 60. With the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same also stands disposed of.