As per case facts, Respondent No.9 leased plots to Respondent Nos.6 and 7, with Respondent No.3 developing under an SRA Scheme, eventually forming the Petitioner cooperative society. When respondents failed ... to convey the land, the Petitioner applied for unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act to Respondent No.10 (Competent Authority). The application was rejected due to a perceived over-claim in area and pending civil suits concerning alleged illegal construction and FSI misuse on upper floors. The Petitioner appealed, arguing the Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by not determining the correct area and improperly treating civil suits as a bar. The question arose whether the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA can reject a deemed conveyance application solely based on a claimed area discrepancy without identifying the correct area, or due to pending civil suits concerning alleged construction irregularities and FSI misuse. Finally, the court held that the Authority erred. It ruled that the Authority must identify the correct area based on records, not reject the application entirely for an over-claim. Pending civil suits on construction/FSI do not bar deemed conveyance, as these are distinct issues. The court directed the Authority to issue a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance for 3,635.4 square meters.