When flat buyers move into a new housing society, one of their most fundamental legal entitlements is the conveyance of land — the formal transfer of the plot on which their buildings stand from the developer to their society. Under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), this is not a favour the developer grants. It is a statutory obligation. Yet across Mumbai, builders have found ways to delay, defer, and dodge this obligation for years, sometimes decades. A judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court on June 18, 2026 in Writ Petition No. 9694 of 2017 adds another chapter to this long and troubled history — and does so in unusually direct language.
The Plot, the Builder, and the Buildings
The dispute centres on a large plot of land in Vile Parle, admeasuring 21,736 square metres, bearing CTS No. 69/6 (PT) and CTS No. 35 of Village Vile Parle. The developer, Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd., undertook phased construction on this land over several decades, eventually completing twelve buildings — numbered A to H, J, K, L, and M.
The flat buyers of the first ten buildings (A to H, J and K) formed Kalpita Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). When buildings L and M were subsequently completed and their occupancy certificates issued in November 1990, their residents formed two separate societies — Kalpita Enclave Building No. L CHSL (Respondent No. 2) and Kalpita Enclave Building No. M CHSL (Respondent No. 3).
All three societies wanted what the law entitled them to: conveyance of the land on which their buildings stood.
Four Decades of Dispute
The conflict between the builder and the societies did not begin in 2017. It stretches back to 1985.
When Kiran Builders proposed constructing four additional buildings — L, M, N, and P — on the plot by utilising FSI flowing from land surrendered for a 44-feet Development Plan road, Respondent No. 1 Society was opposed. It filed S.C. Suit No. 3226 of 1985 before the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking conveyance of the entire land of 21,736 sq. mtrs in its favour and effectively challenging the developer’s expansion plans.
During the pendency of that suit, Kiran Builders succeeded in constructing buildings L and M, which received their occupancy certificates in November 1990. The City Civil Court, taking note of this changed reality, passed a decree on November 7, 1997, directing conveyance of only the land appurtenant to buildings A to H, J and K in favour of Respondent No. 1 Society. The prayer for conveyance of the entire land was not granted.
Respondent No. 1 Society challenged this decree before the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 1091 of 2000. That appeal remained pending for sixteen years.
By 2016, the picture had changed further. Two more societies had formed in buildings L and M. Respondent No. 1 Society reconsidered its approach — rather than fighting for the entire land solely for itself and excluding the other two societies, it chose to join hands with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and seek joint conveyance of the entire land. On September 16, 2016, Respondent No. 1 withdrew First Appeal No. 1091 of 2000, expressly stating its intention to apply for deemed conveyance. All three societies then filed a joint application under Section 11(3) of MOFA before the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies-3, Mumbai, who also functions as the Competent Authority under MOFA.
On May 15, 2017, the Competent Authority granted a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of the entire land admeasuring 21,736 sq. mtrs in favour of the three societies.
Kiran Builders challenged this order before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 9694 of 2017. The High Court admitted the petition in March 2024 and stayed the operation of the deemed conveyance order pending final hearing. The petition was finally decided on June 18, 2026.
The Three Grounds Raised by the Builder
Kiran Builders raised three principal grounds to challenge and resist the deemed conveyance order.
Ground One: The 1997 Civil Court Decree
The builder’s first argument was that the decree dated November 7, 1997 passed by the City Civil Court had attained finality — since Respondent No. 1’s First Appeal was withdrawn — and that this decree, which directed conveyance of only the land appurtenant to buildings A to H, J and K, created a binding determination that could not be overridden by the Competent Authority under MOFA. The builder contended that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to pass an order contrary to what the Civil Court had already decided.
The court rejected this argument. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the 1985 suit was filed in an entirely different context — at a time when only buildings A to H, J and K existed and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not yet been formed. The 1997 decree accordingly directed conveyance of only the land appurtenant to those buildings, since buildings L and M had come up during the pendency of the suit and the court had to accommodate that reality. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not parties to the suit or to the First Appeal. A decision on land entitlement could not have been effectively rendered without hearing them.
The court held that it is always open to a party to withdraw a conveyance suit and file an application for deemed conveyance instead. Legislature had consciously provided this faster remedy under amended MOFA. Since the suit itself could have been withdrawn with liberty to seek deemed conveyance, the same course was equally available during pendency of the appeal. The objection of res judicata was also repelled since the appeal was withdrawn expressly for the purpose of filing a deemed conveyance application — not as an abandonment of the claim.
Ground Two: Reserved and Surrendered Land
The builder’s second argument was that the Competent Authority had erred in conveying the entire land of 21,736 sq. mtrs, since portions of that land had already been surrendered for a DP road or were reserved in the Development Plan for a municipal market and a primary school. These portions, the builder argued, could not legally be conveyed to the societies.
On this ground, the court agreed with the builder — but only partially, and the societies themselves conceded the point. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 voluntarily offered to exclude not just the three portions flagged by the builder, but two additional ones: land admeasuring 123.12 sq. mtrs taken over by MCGM in 2001 for widening of Sahar Road, and land admeasuring 2,328.41 sq. mtrs encroached upon by slum dwellers and lying outside the societies’ compound wall.
The total deductions worked out to 4,711.65 sq. mtrs, reducing the conveyance area to 16,584.55 sq. mtrs. The court accepted this and held that the Competent Authority had committed an error in directing conveyance of the full 21,736 sq. mtrs — an error that needed correction.
Ground Three: Future Construction of Buildings N and P
This was the builder’s most ambitious argument, and the one the court dealt with most firmly.
Kiran Builders contended that it retained the right to construct two more buildings — N and P — on the plot, on the basis of plans sanctioned in 1983. It argued that conveyance could not be granted until the entire layout development was complete, and that even the 16,584.55 sq. mtrs sought by the societies could not be conveyed since Buildings N and P would come up on that land.
The court traced the history of this claim carefully. The construction of buildings N and P was always premised on the builder’s belief that the land surrendered for the DP road measured 2,200 sq. mtrs — which would have generated sufficient FSI for four additional buildings, L, M, N, and P. However, when the actual area surrendered was determined to be only 1,859 sq. mtrs, the FSI available was reduced, allowing construction of only buildings L and M. Buildings N and P could not be built.
Critically, this was not a recent discovery. MCGM had communicated this position to Kiran Builders in a letter dated April 23, 1991 — over three decades ago — explicitly stating that there was no balance FSI in lieu of the DP road and that construction of buildings N and P was not possible.
Faced with this, the builder advanced a novel argument: that it expected to receive development rights — possibly in the form of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) — when the lands reserved for the municipal market and primary school were eventually acquired by the Municipal Corporation, and that it intended to use those rights to construct buildings N and P.
The court called this argument “preposterous to the core” and dismantled it on six grounds. First, there is no certainty that the Planning Authority will ever acquire those reserved lands — if they are not acquired within the stipulated period, the land owner can invoke Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and have the reservations lifted. Second, if the lands are acquired, the builder’s entitlement is to compensation — monetary or through TDR. Third, TDR, if issued through a Development Rights Certificate, is freely tradable and can be used in any other project or sold in the market — there is no obligation to use it on the subject land. Fourth, the builder retains ownership of the slum land, which can be independently redeveloped using any TDR received. Fifth, and as the court underlined most importantly, compensation received for acquired land — whether monetary or in TDR form — cannot be treated as a development potential for the land being conveyed to the societies. Once land is acquired, it is separated from the layout entirely. Sixth, the acquisitions have not happened yet, and cooperative of neighbouring landowners required for the process is absent — making the entire premise even more uncertain.
The court also invoked the settled legal position established by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Lakeview Developers vs. Eternia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2015), which held that a developer cannot exploit building potential for eternity without conveying land to the society. Once the full development potential is exhausted and the obligation to convey has arisen, any future FSI or TDR that may become available cannot be used to justify withholding conveyance. This principle was reiterated in Rajkumar Gulati and Ors. vs. S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2025).
The Court’s Order
Justice Marne held that the Competent Authority was fully justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of MOFA and granting deemed conveyance. The petition by Kiran Builders was partly allowed — but only to the extent of correcting the area of land to be conveyed.
The order dated May 15, 2017 passed by the Competent Authority, along with the certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance issued in pursuance thereof, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority with a direction to issue a fresh certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance in respect of land admeasuring 16,584.55 sq. mtrs in favour of the three societies — within three months. Parties were directed to appear before the Competent Authority on June 24, 2026.
The occupancy certificates for the buildings of Respondent No. 1 Society were issued in the 1970s. Those of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 followed in November 1990. The court noted that the builder had already delayed performance of its statutory obligation for an extraordinary length of time. No costs were awarded.
Also Read: Stuck With Deemed Conveyance? Maharashtra Govt Launches Statewide 4-Day Camp for Housing Societies
