In a significant order for housing societies in Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has directed developer K.T. Realty to complete the lawful conveyance or assignment of its transferable rights in the land and building to Sai Kutir Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The order, passed by Member-I Mahesh Pathak on October 12, 2026, in Complaint No. CC12602060, reinforces that conveyance is a statutory obligation of the promoter under Section 17 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”).
The decision is important because housing societies in Maharashtra often have to pursue deemed conveyance before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1966, when a developer delays or refuses to transfer title. This order shows that a registered society can also approach MahaRERA directly and seek enforcement of the developer’s conveyance obligation under RERA.
The dispute
Sai Kutir is a MahaRERA-registered project bearing registration No. P51700020014, located on Plot/S.No. 27 in Thane district. The project received its Occupancy Certificate on August 20, 2023, and possession was handed over to buyers thereafter. However, the society was registered only on January 20, 2025, and the conveyance deed had still not been executed when the complaint was decided.
Rajiv Jain filed the complaint before MahaRERA on April 7, 2026, authorised by a society resolution dated April 5, 2026. The society sought directions for execution of the conveyance deed, transfer of legal title, handover of common areas and documents, rectification of alleged construction defects, correction of parking-related issues, removal of alleged encroachments, reimbursement of repair and audit expenses, compensation, and penalties against the developer.
K.T. Realty contested the complaint. It argued that the complainant was not an allottee and initially lacked proper authorisation from the society. On merits, it said the project complied with sanctioned plans and agreements, that alleged defects were unsupported by technical evidence, and that conveyance was delayed because the land was leasehold land allotted by CIDCO and required compliance with lease conditions and permissions. The developer also said some allottees had not completed payment and documentation formalities.
What MahaRERA held
MahaRERA rejected the developer’s maintainability objection because the society had placed on record its resolution authorising Rajiv Jain to pursue the complaint. The Authority then examined the central issue: whether it could direct conveyance despite the project land being CIDCO leasehold land.
The Authority noted that the developer had, in its written submissions, accepted its statutory liability and expressed willingness to complete the conveyance process. However, because the land was leasehold and transferred by CIDCO, MahaRERA held that it could not pass an unconditional direction requiring transfer of “full ownership” of the land, irrespective of the developer’s actual transferable rights.
Accordingly, MahaRERA directed K.T. Realty to take all necessary steps to complete the lawful conveyance or assignment of its transferable rights in the land and building in favour of Sai Kutir Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., in accordance with Section 17 of RERA. The direction is subject to applicable CIDCO lease conditions and permissions. The society has also been directed to cooperate in completing the process.
The legal basis: Section 17 of RERA
The core provision is Section 17(1) of RERA. It requires the promoter to execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee, along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas, in favour of the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be. MahaRERA’s FAQ also states that the promoter must execute the registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee or association of allottees within three months from the date of issue of the Occupancy Certificate, as per Section 17(1).
Section 11(4)(f) of RERA similarly makes the promoter responsible for executing a registered conveyance deed of the apartment, plot or building in favour of the allottee, together with undivided proportionate title in common areas in favour of the association of allottees, as provided under Section 17.
In this case, MahaRERA did not treat the CIDCO leasehold nature of the land as a reason to escape the obligation altogether. Instead, it tailored the relief: the developer must convey or assign whatever rights it lawfully holds, while complying with CIDCO’s lease conditions and permission requirements.
Why this matters for societies
For many societies, delayed conveyance is not a technical formality. Until conveyance is completed, the society may face difficulty in establishing complete legal control over the land and building, managing common areas, obtaining loans, undertaking redevelopment, or dealing with statutory authorities.
Traditionally, societies have used the deemed conveyance mechanism under MOFA, where the competent authority can convey the land and building to the society when the promoter fails to do so. This MahaRERA order demonstrates a parallel and potentially more direct route: the society can file a RERA complaint seeking an order that the promoter perform its statutory conveyance obligation.
The order does not abolish deemed conveyance. Rather, it confirms that RERA can be used to compel the builder to execute conveyance directly, particularly where the developer has the ability to complete the process but has not done so.
What the society did not get
The order was only partly allowed. MahaRERA rejected the society’s other reliefs because it found insufficient documentary evidence. The leakage report relied upon related to individual Flats Nos. 1102 and 1202, which the Authority said could not be decided in a society-level complaint concerning common issues.
The Authority also declined to issue a blanket direction for alleged incomplete amenities, false-ceiling work, parking deviations, fire-safety issues, or electrical-safety issues. It observed that CIDCO had issued the Occupancy Certificate, which prima facie indicated compliance with requirements at that stage, and that the society had not produced cogent proof of deviations or deficiencies attributable to the developer.
MahaRERA also refused reimbursement because the society did not submit an item-wise statement supported by bills proving the expenses incurred and the developer’s liability. However, it clarified that individual allottees may pursue defect claims under Section 14(3) of RERA, and the society may approach CIDCO or other competent authorities for parking, unauthorised construction, fire safety, and electrical safety grievances.
Key takeaways
- A registered co-operative housing society can approach MahaRERA for enforcement of conveyance obligations.
- Section 17 of RERA is the principal provision requiring a promoter to execute a registered conveyance deed.
- A leasehold project does not automatically exempt the developer from conveyance; the direction may be framed according to the developer’s transferable rights and lessor requirements.
- Societies should maintain a clear paper trail: society resolution, OC date, correspondence with the developer, CIDCO-related documents, and evidence of delay.
- Claims for defects, parking, safety, and reimbursement require strong technical and documentary evidence; a general allegation may not suffice.
Also Read: Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project
