The Property and the Transaction

Ranjan Talakshi Vora, a resident of Parel, Mumbai, had acquired rights in Flat No. B/1201, Palm Paradise, Navi Mumbai, developed by M/s Moraj Finanz Corporation. The flat was originally allotted to one Mrs. Kalavati R. Trivedi. During FY 2006-07, Mrs. Trivedi transferred her rights in the flat to Vora, with the developer’s consent. Vora formalised the booking via a letter of reservation dated 25 January 2007, at a total consideration of ₹20,12,670.

The payments were made promptly. A sum of ₹2,62,000 was paid directly to the developer by cheque dated 11 January 2007. The remaining ₹16,28,470 was paid to Mrs. Trivedi on 20 January 2007 — essentially buying out her allotment rights. Both payments were traceable through bank statements.

Vora also had other flats booked with the same developer and maintained a consolidated ledger under the head “Advance Against Flat,” with separate working sheets to track the cost attributable to each individual flat.

The Surrender and the Tax Filing

Seven years later, in December 2013, Vora decided to exit the investment. She surrendered her rights in the flat via a cancellation letter dated 16 December 2013, for a consideration of ₹74,25,000. As per the arrangement with the developer, the amount was payable after the developer sold the flat to a new buyer. The money was accordingly received by Vora on 15 March 2014.

When filing her income tax return for Assessment Year 2014-15, Vora declared a total income of ₹18,650 and reported the profit from this transaction as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) — after claiming indexed cost of acquisition and brokerage expenses of ₹1,48,500. Since she had held the rights for over seven years, this was a straightforward LTCG claim on the face of it.

How the Tax Department Saw It Differently

The return was selected for scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) examined the books of account and noticed something that would become the cornerstone of his entire case — the journal entry recording the booking and allotment of Flat No. B/1201 appeared in the assessee’s books only on 31 March 2011, not in FY 2006-07 when the actual reservation and payments had taken place.

The AO seized on this date. Treating 31 March 2011 as the date of acquisition, he calculated the holding period from that date to the surrender date of 15 March 2014 — arriving at a period of less than 36 months. Under the Income Tax Act, an immovable property or rights therein must be held for more than 36 months to qualify as a long-term capital asset. Since the holding period came to under 36 months on this reading, the AO reclassified the entire gain as Short Term Capital Gain (STCG).

This single reclassification resulted in an addition of ₹17,04,705 to the assessee’s income, taxable at full slab rates instead of the concessional LTCG rate with indexation benefit.

The AO did allow deduction for brokerage expenses and permitted set-off of a current year short-term capital loss of ₹35,59,125 — but the fundamental reclassification stood, and the tax demand followed.

First Appeal: CIT(A) Backs the Tax Department

Aggrieved by the AO’s order, Vora appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. The CIT(A) examined the case and sided with the AO. The reasoning: as per the builder’s ledger and allotment records, the property was acquired on 31 March 2011. The holding period being under 36 months, the STCG treatment was upheld.

The only relief the CIT(A) granted was on a separate, procedural point. Vora had declared short-term capital losses of ₹11,15,396 for AY 2009-10 and ₹1,96,273 for AY 2010-11, and had claimed a set-off of brought-forward losses of ₹2,87,435 in her capital gains computation. Since those returns were filed within the prescribed time under Section 139(1) of the Act, the losses were eligible for carry-forward and set-off under Section 74. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow this set-off and recompute accordingly.

But on the main issue — LTCG versus STCG — the CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s position. Vora was now before the ITAT.

Arguments at the ITAT

What the Assessee’s Counsel Argued

Vora’s authorised representative, Mehul Shah, made a detailed factual and legal submission. He placed on record the reservation letter dated 25 January 2007, bank statements evidencing payments in January 2007, and — critically — the developer’s own written confirmation in response to a notice issued by the tax department under Section 133(6) of the Act. In that confirmation, M/s Moraj Finanz Corporation stated unambiguously that Flat No. B/1201 was originally allotted to Mrs. Kalavati R. Trivedi and that, with the consent of all parties, the rights were transferred to Vora during FY 2006-07.

On the difference in ledger amounts, the AR explained that because Vora had booked multiple flats with the same developer, a common consolidated ledger was maintained by the developer, and the difference of ₹1,22,200 between the amount paid and the amount credited was simply an internal adjustment made by the developer across Vora’s various flat accounts. This was a bookkeeping matter and had no bearing on when the rights were actually acquired.

On the legal side, the AR cited two important CBDT Circulars — Circular No. 471 dated 15 October 1986 and Circular No. 672 dated 16 December 1993 — which clarify that in cases of flat allotments, the date of the allotment letter is the relevant date for determining acquisition, since the allottee obtains a right in the property at that point, and all subsequent payments are merely consequential. The AR also pointed to provisions of Section 50C and Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, which themselves distinguish between the date of agreement or allotment and the date of registration — further reinforcing that rights in a property vest from the date of the allotment letter, not from the date of any later documentation.

What the Tax Department Argued

The Senior Departmental Representative, Pravin Salunkhe, maintained the department’s position. He argued that the journal entry in the books showed 31 March 2011 as the acquisition date, that the assessee had failed to fully reconcile the total payment of ₹20,12,670 with the developer’s records, and that since the assessee had only surrendered rights (and never obtained ownership), the book entry date should govern. The CBDT Circulars, he argued, were not applicable here.

ITAT’s Ruling: Documents Speak Louder Than Ledger Entries

The bench of Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Jagadish (Accountant Member) ruled comprehensively in Vora’s favour.

The Tribunal observed that the reservation letter of January 2007, the bank statements showing payments made at that time, and most decisively the developer’s own confirmation — given under a statutory notice where false information invites legal consequences — together established beyond doubt that the rights in the flat were acquired in FY 2006-07.

The Tribunal held that a subsequent accounting entry in the books cannot override contemporaneous transaction documents. The assessee’s explanation about maintaining a common consolidated ledger for multiple flats, and the internal adjustment of advances by the developer, was noted as a plausible and logical explanation that the department had not disproved by bringing any adverse material on record.

On the legal principle, the ITAT affirmed that the right acquired by an allottee in a property is a valuable capital asset, and the date of allotment or reservation is what determines when the holding period begins — consistent with the CBDT Circulars cited by the assessee.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the rights surrendered by Vora in FY 2013-14 constituted a Long Term Capital Asset, having been held since FY 2006-07 — well over the 36-month threshold. The gain is therefore liable to be assessed as Long Term Capital Gain with indexation benefit. The AO was directed to recompute the capital gains accordingly.

Both grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed. The appeal stands allowed.

Why This Order Matters

This case is a pointed reminder that tax authorities cannot mechanically rely on accounting entries — particularly those in a builder’s books — to determine the date of acquisition of property rights. What governs is the actual date of the transaction, evidenced by the allotment letter, payment records, and the conduct of parties. A builder’s delay in recording an entry in his ledger cannot retroactively alter when a buyer’s rights in a property vested. The ITAT’s order reinforces a well-settled legal principle that has been clarified by the CBDT itself through multiple circulars — that for flat allottees, the clock starts ticking from the date of the allotment letter, not from the date of any subsequent paperwork.

Also Read: No Tax on Temporary Flat: ITAT Rules Developer’s Alternate Accommodation Isn’t a Taxable “Transfer” of Property

The post Mumbai Woman Bought Flat in 2007, Builder Wrote It in 2011 — Tax Dept Pounced appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling delivered on July 2, 2026, Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed Writ Petition No. 9689 of 2025 filed by Godrej Projects Development Ltd. against homebuyers R.K. Ramani and Jayanti Ramani. The court upheld earlier orders of the District Consumer Commission and the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission that had condoned the delay in filing the complaint.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute relates to Flat No. 103, C Wing in the Godrej Central project.

According to court records:

• The flat was booked by the Ramanis in 2015.
• The total consideration was ₹2,19,55,239.
• The buyers paid ₹45,15,844 as part consideration.
• Godrej issued an allotment letter on August 10, 2015.

The developer later alleged that the buyers failed to pay the balance amount despite repeated reminders and consequently terminated the allotment on January 28, 2016, while proceeding to forfeit the entire ₹45.15 lakh already paid.

How the Litigation Began

The buyers challenged the cancellation and forfeiture.

They first filed Consumer Complaint No. 18/685 before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on August 13, 2018, along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

However, on April 16, 2019, the State Commission held that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the complaint, directing the buyers to approach the appropriate forum within one month.

The complaint was eventually refiled before the District Consumer Commission on July 22, 2022.

Godrej’s Arguments

Developer’s objections to delay Condonation

Senior advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, appearing for Godrej Projects Development Ltd., argued that the delay was grossly understated.

According to the developer:

• The buyers claimed a delay of only 76 days, whereas the actual delay was 1,192 days.
• The original complaint itself had been filed beyond the two-year limitation period.
• The buyers failed to comply with the State Commission’s direction to refile within one month.
• The complaint filed before the District Commission was not a continuation of the earlier proceeding.
• No satisfactory explanation had been offered for such an inordinate delay.

Case law relied upon by the developer

• State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO
• Sri Amar Chand Inani vs. Union of India

Homebuyers’ Counter-Arguments

Buyers’ defence of the delay

Advocate Ami Mandani, appearing for Jayanti Ramani, opposed the writ petition and argued that the buyers were being unfairly deprived of a substantial amount.

She contended that:

• The buyers were always ready to pay the balance consideration.
• Godrej failed to execute a registered agreement for sale as required under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).
• The unilateral termination and forfeiture were illegal.
• After the State Commission returned the complaint, the original papers and court-fee records were not readily available.
• The buyers had to invoke the Right to Information Act to obtain documents.
• The COVID-19 pandemic further delayed proceedings.
• One complainant, R.K. Ramani, contracted COVID-19 in June 2022 and later passed away during the litigation.

Judgments cited by the buyers

• Purni Devi vs. Babu Ram
• Ram Ujarey vs. Union of India
• Vilas Tukaram Chavan vs. Suresh Bhanudas Kulkarni
• Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Ghasiram

What the High Court Observed

Court’s View

Key observations by Justice N.J. Jamadar

The High Court noted that the buyers had indeed prosecuted the earlier complaint before a forum that ultimately lacked jurisdiction. It held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which permits exclusion of time spent bona fide before a wrong forum, was applicable.

Justice Jamadar also relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice.

The court found that the buyers’ explanation was supported by contemporaneous documents showing efforts to obtain returned records and court-fee documents through RTI proceedings.

The judgment also recorded that:

• Limitation stood suspended during the pandemic pursuant to Supreme Court orders from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022.
• Medical records showed that the deceased complainant had suffered from COVID-19.
• The surviving complainant was pursuing a claim for refund of ₹45.15 lakh, a substantial amount paid in 2015.
• No registered agreement for sale had been executed despite MOFA obligations.

Final Outcome

Petition dismissed

The Bombay High Court ultimately held that the balance of justice lay in favour of the homebuyers and that there was no reason to interfere with the consumer forums’ decision condoning the delay.

As a result:

• Godrej’s writ petition was dismissed with costs.
• The delay remains condoned.
• The consumer complaint seeking refund and other reliefs will now proceed before the District Consumer Commission on merits.

Also Read: Bombay High Court: Borrowers Can’t Force Banks to Settle Defaulted Loans

The post Bombay HC Allows Homebuyers’ ₹45 Lakh Refund Claim Against Godrej to Proceed appeared first on Square Feat India.

The complaint (CC004000000030465) was filed by the legal heirs of Laxman Mukundrao Gajbhiye — his wife Chandrakala Laxman Gajbhiye and sons Nagarjun Laxman Gajbhiye and Prasad Laxman Gajbhiye — along with co-complainant Rajendra Baburao Pachbhave.

Chronology of Events:

• On 8th September 2016, Laxman Gajbhiye entered into a registered Agreement for Sale with M/s Magniton Infra for Flat No. 701 in the project “The Address” (MahaRERA Reg. No. P50500012771) at Renghe Nagar, Nagpur, for ₹44 lakh. Possession was promised by 30th September 2017.
• The buyers paid ₹35 lakh through RTGS/NEFT and ₹10 lakh in cash.
• In February 2017, the promoter executed a Deed of Correction and created an additional flat on the 7th floor, renumbering the complainant’s flat as 702 without informing or obtaining consent from the buyer.
• The original Flat 701 was later sold to another person.
• Laxman Gajbhiye, who was battling vocal cancer, passed away on 14th June 2023.
• Despite issuing a possession letter dated 1st January 2020 for Flat 701, the promoter failed to deliver possession. The project still does not have an Occupation Certificate.

The complainants approached MahaRERA in February 2023 seeking interest for delayed possession, execution of sale deed, and completion of interior work.

MahaRERA Order Dated 23rd June 2026 (Coram: Shri Ravindra Deshpande, Member II)

The Authority passed the order ex-parte against the promoter M/s Magniton Infra and its partners Ravindra Balaji Govindwar and Anil Madhukar Asegaonkar, as they did not contest the case. It also held the landowners — Meena w/o Arvind Talmale and Rakhi w/o Rajiv Menghare — liable as promoters.

While noting the unilateral change of flat number, MahaRERA accepted the complainants’ willingness to take Flat 702 provided the documents are corrected. The Authority directed:

1. The promoter shall execute and register a Correction Deed changing Flat No. 701 to 702 in favour of the complainants within 30 days.
2. Upon receipt of Occupation Certificate and payment of any genuine balance amount, the promoter shall hand over possession of Flat No. 702 within 30 days.
3. The promoter shall pay interest for delayed possession on the actual amount paid by the complainants from 1st October 2017 till the date of handing over possession along with OC, at the rate of SBI Highest MCLR + 2% p.a.
4. The promoter shall pay ₹20,000 towards the cost of the complaint.

The order allows set-off of any remaining flat payment against the interest payable.

This order effectively requires the homebuyers to accept the renumbered Flat 702 after legal correction while granting them monetary relief for the long delay.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post Builder Sells Flat 701, Renumbers it 702, RERA Orders Buyer to Take 702 + Delay Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak delivered the common judgment, ruling that MHADA, as the landowner and planning authority, has the power to redevelop these layouts in an integrated manner under DCPR 33(9) read with DCPR 33(5). The court held that individual societies cannot insist on standalone redevelopment of their buildings when it conflicts with larger public interest and planned development of the entire layout.

Why the Petitions Were Filed

Multiple societies — including MIG Adarsh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, Worli Smruti, and several High Income Group (HIG) societies in Bandra Reclamation such as Anand Sagar, Sagar Sangam, Suman, Saptarshi, Sagar Kiran, and Agasti — had approached the court. They argued that as sub-lessees holding long-term leases (up to 99 years) from MHADA, they have the right to redevelop their own buildings independently.

The petitioners contended that forcing cluster redevelopment without their consent violated the Transfer of Property Act, DCPR provisions requiring society consent, Article 300A of the Constitution (right against deprivation of property without due process), and their right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c). They also raised concerns about possible inadequate rehabilitation and forced amalgamation of societies.

What the Court Held

The High Court rejected these arguments. It observed that MHADA layouts such as Adarsh Nagar (~34.33 acres) and Bandra Reclamation (~98.27 acres) comprise old buildings developed decades ago. Allowing piecemeal redevelopment by individual societies through different developers would result in haphazard development, poor infrastructure planning, and loss of opportunity for coordinated roads, open spaces, parking, drainage, water supply, and amenities.

The Bench noted that under the proposed cluster redevelopment, residents will not only get full rehabilitation in new buildings within the same layout but will also receive substantial additional incentives and area — more than the statutory minimum they would get if redeveloping independently. The court recorded MHADA’s assurances that occupants’ interests are fully safeguarded.

The judges held that policy decisions on integrated redevelopment of MHADA layouts, aimed at balanced housing stock across income groups and better urban planning, are in larger public interest. Courts have limited scope to interfere in such matters unless the decision is patently arbitrary or illegal — which it was not in this case.

The redevelopment is expected to impact thousands of residents across these layouts. The court said any interference would adversely affect the larger body of bona fide occupants.

How It Benefits the City and Residents

This order paves the way for modern, well-planned redevelopment of two prime Mumbai layouts instead of fragmented, unplanned growth. Residents stand to gain better infrastructure, improved fire safety access, organised parking, landscaped open spaces, upgraded civic amenities, and higher-quality buildings.

For the city, it means more efficient use of scarce urban land, creation of additional housing stock, and avoidance of the chaos that often comes with multiple developers working independently in dense areas. The integrated approach aligns with MHADA’s mandate under the MHADA Act to ensure orderly urban development and address Mumbai’s acute housing shortage through planned projects.

MHADA can now proceed with the next steps, including tenders and detailed planning for these cluster projects. While the societies have the option to approach the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court order currently stands.

Also Read: Adani, Lodha, JSW Lead MHADA Cluster Redevelopment Race Set to Transform Mumbai Realty Scene

The post Bombay HC dismisses all writ petitions challenging MHADA’s cluster redevelopment of Adarsh Nagar (Worli) and Bandra Reclamation layouts. appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Peg: Crude Below $72 and the Market That Won’t Look Back

GIFT Nifty surged 182 points to 24,448 before Friday’s opening bell — the strongest pre-open signal in over a month. Asian markets rebounded sharply overnight after earlier losses driven by semiconductor stock unwinding, with South Korea’s KOSPI up 1.4% and Japan’s Nikkei gaining 0.28%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 1.14% higher on Wall Street overnight. Brent crude held steady below $72 per barrel — the lowest level since before the Iran conflict erupted in late February — as markets continued to price in gradual normalisation of Persian Gulf oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz.

The broader market context going into Friday is strong. On Thursday July 2, the Sensex closed at 77,502.12, a gain of 579.48 points or 0.75%, while the Nifty50 settled at 24,175.70, up 169.85 points or 0.71%. The session was powered by a dramatic reversal in IT stocks — Infosys surged 5.32%, HCLTech gained 4.42%, TCS climbed 3.5% — after days of heavy selling driven by Accenture’s revenue warnings and Fed rate fears. The Nifty Realty index participated as the third-best performing sector on July 2, gaining 0.85%, with DII net purchases of ₹1,075.54 crore and FIIs turning net buyers at ₹289.35 crore providing the institutional underpinning.

For the realty sector, that FII number matters disproportionately. After months of FII net selling that has accumulated to over ₹2.79 lakh crore in CY26, even a marginal positive pivot in FII flows signals that global institutional money is beginning to reassess its India position — and rate-sensitive sectors like real estate are typically the first beneficiaries when that reassessment turns into genuine buying.

How Realty Stocks Are Opening

The Nifty Realty index, which had opened Thursday at 823.25 with a range of 818.55 to 835.30 and carried a Strong Buy signal on all technical timeframes, is extending that momentum into Friday’s open. With GIFT Nifty at 24,448 — implying a gap-up open for the Nifty50 well above the 24,200 resistance level — the broader market is providing realty stocks with the strongest possible launchpad.

DLF, which has participated in each session of the current four-day recovery and carries a 19.96% weight in the Nifty Realty index, opened Friday with active buying interest. Phoenix Mills, the index’s second-largest constituent at 17.43% weight, continued building on its gains — the stock had been among the sector’s steadier performers through the recovery cycle, gaining 1.99% on July 1. Godrej Properties, Prestige Estates Projects, Sobha, and Lodha Developers all opened firmly in positive territory.

The two names drawing the most attention at the open are Oberoi Realty and Brigade Enterprises — the sector’s persistent underperformers through the June-July recovery. With the broader market gapping up sharply on Friday, there is early evidence that buyers are finally rotating into these laggards. A sustained recovery in both names through Friday’s session would be the clearest sign yet that the sector’s recovery has moved from selective to broad-based.

Aditya Birla Real Estate, which surged 5.66% on July 1 in the week’s most dramatic single-session move for any realty stock, opened Friday consolidating those gains — a healthy signal for the stock’s medium-term trajectory.

What Is Working

Crude below $72 is the most powerful structural tailwind the sector has received since the Iran conflict disrupted global oil markets in late February. The peace process between Iran’s new leadership under Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and the US, mediated through Qatar, produced what both sides described as “positive progress” in technical talks on maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz last week. With crude at these levels, the margin relief for developers with large active construction pipelines is real, material, and flowing through to project economics in real time.

The broader market’s technical recovery is also now difficult to argue against. The Nifty50 at 24,175 has broken above the 24,100–24,150 resistance zone that analysts had identified as the key barrier to a sustained recovery. Friday’s gap-up open above 24,200 — if held — would technically clear the path toward 24,400 and 24,500, levels that would represent a complete recovery from the Iran-conflict-era lows.

India VIX continuing to ease — it fell to 13.24 on July 2 — is the volatility signal that most clearly endorses the risk-on environment for rate-sensitive sectors. Real estate, banking, and auto are the three sectors that most consistently outperform when VIX moves from 15-plus to 13 and below, and two of those three are now in extended uptrends.

The Q1 FY27 presales season building in the background continues to be a quiet but powerful medium-term catalyst. Lodha Developers, coming off its best-ever quarter with ₹5,620 crore in pre-sales, Godrej Properties with its Samaris launch in Gurugram generating strong early traction, and Prestige Estates with its deepening Hyderabad and Mumbai pipeline are all set to produce presales disclosures over the next four weeks that are entirely independent of geopolitical developments. These disclosures, when they come, will give the sector a fundamental anchor that does not depend on crude or diplomacy.

What Isn’t Working

The Doha peace process remains unresolved. Iran and the US have concluded one round of indirect technical talks, but the two sides are still far apart on a comprehensive framework to permanently open the Strait of Hormuz and address Iran’s nuclear programme. The next round of talks has no confirmed date, and Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei — who has deep ties to the IRGC and has been consistently described as more hardline than his father on matters of nuclear policy and relations with the West — is an uncertain negotiating counterpart. Any deterioration in the diplomatic tone over the weekend could push crude higher and reset some of Friday’s gains by Monday.

The Nasdaq’s 0.8% decline overnight, even as the Dow surged 1.14%, is a reminder that the global technology sector has not fully stabilised. India’s IT stocks had their sharp recovery on July 2, but the Nasdaq’s renewed weakness suggests that the global headwinds for tech — Fed rate uncertainty, AI revenue expectations, Accenture’s guidance — have not been resolved. If IT stocks reverse course in Friday’s session, they could cap the Nifty’s advance and limit the spill-over benefit for realty.

US markets close early on Friday ahead of the July 4 Independence Day holiday, which means global volume will thin dramatically through the Indian afternoon. Low-volume Friday afternoons are historically prone to sharp reversals as institutional hedges are unwound before the long weekend, and that dynamic applies to Friday’s Indian session as well. Gains made in the morning should be treated with appropriate caution heading into the final hour of trade.

What to Watch Through the Day

The Nifty50’s ability to hold above 24,200 on a closing basis is the primary technical signal to track. A close above 24,200 today would confirm that the index has broken its near-term resistance zone and open the path toward 24,400. It would also confirm five consecutive positive sessions for the Nifty and represent the index’s strongest weekly close in over a month.

For the realty sector, watch Oberoi Realty and Brigade Enterprises for any signs that Friday’s broad-based gap-up is finally drawing buyers into the laggards. If both stocks close with gains of 1% or more, it would mark the first session in the current recovery cycle where the entire index has moved in unison — a signal that is historically associated with the beginning of sustained sectoral uptrends rather than short-term bounces.

Any fresh headline from Doha — either progress or a breakdown — will be the wildcard that overrides everything else. The market is currently pricing in gradual diplomatic progress, crude at $70–72, and a recovery trajectory into Q1 FY27. A diplomatic breakdown that pushes crude back above $78 would test whether four days of buying represents genuine conviction or just short-covering dressed up as accumulation.

The answer to that question will arrive in the coming weeks. For now, Friday’s opening tells the sector’s most optimistic story of Q1 FY27. And realty stocks, at last, seem to be listening.

Also Read: Realty Stocks Extend Gains as Markets Open

The post Realty Stocks Open Higher as Crude Drops Below $72 and Market Eyes a Fifth Straight Day of Gains appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling that strengthens the hands of homebuyers trapped in delayed real estate projects, the Bombay High Court has made it clear that the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal must properly consider powerful enforcement options available under civil procedure law when a promoter fails to honour its orders to complete construction.

The Stalled Dream in Kandivali

The case revolves around the “Shri Vallabh Residency” project at Shivaji Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, promoted by Swadhinta Builders LLP. Several allottees, including Rajan Chandiramani, Jagruti Parikh, Priyanka Waghela, Srichand Makhija and Jayesh Jagdish Thakkar, had booked flats way back in 2010. They paid substantial amounts — one allottee alone had paid ₹7.5 lakh against a total consideration of around ₹48.78 lakh — but the project never took off meaningfully. No commencement certificate was obtained for years, agreements for sale were not executed, and possession remained a distant dream.

From Complaint to Tribunal Victory

Frustrated by the inordinate delay, the allottees approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in 2020. The Authority, however, disposed of the complaint on a technical ground — since no commencement certificate had been obtained, it expressed inability to issue directions under Section 13 of the RERA Act. It merely protected the allottees’ rights and said the promoter must fulfil its obligations whenever the project starts.

Aggrieved, the allottees appealed to the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal. On 30 June 2022, the Tribunal delivered a favourable order. It directed the promoter to execute agreements for sale within 30 days and complete construction of the project within 12 months after obtaining all necessary approvals. The promoter was also asked to pay interest on amounts received from allottees until possession. Crucially, the Tribunal gave the allottees liberty to take action under Sections 7 and 35 of RERA if the promoter failed to comply, and to claim compensation.

When the Builder Ignored the Order

Despite the clear directions, the promoter failed to comply. The allottees were forced to file execution applications (Nos. 13 to 17 of 2023) before the same Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the continued non-compliance and, on 22 June 2024, issued warrants for recovery of dues and imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 per day of delay.

Still dissatisfied with the pace of enforcement, the allottees filed amendment applications in 2025. They sought to add specific prayers under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). One part asked for detention of the promoter’s partners in civil prison and attachment of properties. The more significant prayer (sub-clause ii) sought that the Tribunal direct the construction of the project to be carried out by the decree-holders (the homebuyers) themselves or by any other person appointed by the Tribunal, at the cost of the judgment-debtor (the promoter), with expenses recoverable as if they formed part of the original decree.

The Battle Over Amendment at the Tribunal

On 10 July 2025, the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the amendment applications. It permitted the prayers for civil prison and attachment of properties. However, it rejected the prayer for getting the construction completed by the homebuyers or a Tribunal-appointed person.

The Tribunal reasoned that other allottees of the project were not before it. It observed that the 2022 order itself had granted liberty to approach under Section 7 of RERA, which empowers the Authority to revoke the promoter’s registration on a complaint or suo motu if the promoter defaults in obligations, violates terms of approvals, or indulges in unfair practices (after giving due notice). Once registration is revoked, Section 8 comes into play. It casts an obligation on the Authority to take measures for completing the remaining development works — by a competent authority, the association of allottees (who have the first right of refusal), or in any other manner determined by the Authority. This route is meant to ensure collective protection of all homebuyers in the project.

The Tribunal viewed the Rule 32(5) route as a last resort and felt it could not be invoked at that stage.

What Both Sides Argued Before the High Court

Aggrieved by the rejection, the allottees approached the Bombay High Court through second appeals. Senior Advocate Jay Chhabria, appearing for the homebuyers along with his team, argued that the Tribunal had wrongly delved into the merits of the proposed amendment while deciding whether to allow it. He submitted that while considering an amendment application, the court should only examine whether the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy and whether it causes prejudice that cannot be compensated. The Tribunal had instead gone into questions like whether there was wilful disobedience, whether Section 7 was the appropriate remedy, and whether Rule 32(5) was a last resort — all of which were matters to be decided later on merits.

Chhabria further contended that Section 57 of RERA empowers the Appellate Tribunal to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court and confers upon it all powers of a civil court for that purpose. Therefore, the Tribunal could legitimately invoke Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC as an additional mode of execution. The liberty granted in the 2022 order to take recourse to Section 7 did not bar other lawful execution remedies. He emphasised that the amendment was only seeking to add another tool for enforcement and did not expand the scope of the original decree.

On the other side, Advocate Rubin Vakil, representing Swadhinta Builders LLP, supported the Tribunal’s order. He argued that the power of an executing court to allow amendments is narrower than in original proceedings. An executing court cannot travel beyond the decree. He submitted that allowing the construction prayer would materially expand the scope of the 2022 order. Vakil stressed that Sections 7 and 8 of RERA form a special mechanism designed to protect the collective interest of all allottees through revocation of registration and subsequent steps by the Authority or association of allottees. Permitting individual allottees to invoke Rule 32(5) could jeopardise the interests of other buyers who were not parties to the proceedings. He also argued that the special provisions of RERA should prevail over general provisions of the CPC.

Bombay High Court’s Clear Verdict

Justice N.J. Jamadar, after hearing both sides, delivered the judgment on 24 June 2026. The High Court allowed all the second appeals, quashed the Tribunal’s order to the extent it rejected the amendment, and directed that the amendment applications be allowed in full.

The Court held that the Tribunal had committed an error by examining the merits and consequences of the proposed amendment at the stage of deciding whether to permit the amendment itself. It clarified that the proposed prayer was in exact consonance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI CPC and was a legitimate mode of executing the specific performance part of the 2022 decree (direction to complete construction).

On the interplay between RERA and CPC, the High Court ruled that Section 57 of RERA creates a deeming fiction making Tribunal orders executable as civil court decrees and expressly confers all powers of a civil court on the Tribunal for execution. There is no conflict with Sections 7 and 8 of RERA. The liberty to approach under Section 7 does not foreclose other execution remedies. The remedy under Order XXI Rule 32(5) is independent and can be resorted to in addition to or in lieu of other modes like attachment and detention.

Importantly, the Court noted that the Tribunal retains full discretion while actually granting relief under Rule 32(5). It can consider the facts of the case, including the stage of the project and the interests of all allottees, and may appoint a receiver, a new developer, or even the association of allottees. The High Court directed the allottees to carry out the amendment within three weeks and asked the Tribunal to decide the execution applications on merits as expeditiously as possible.

What Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC Actually Means

Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC deals with execution of decrees for specific performance of a contract, restitution of conjugal rights, or injunction. Sub-rule (5) specifically provides that where such a decree has not been obeyed, the court may, in addition to or instead of attachment of property or detention in civil prison, direct that the act required to be done (here, completion of construction) may be performed, as far as practicable, by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor. The expenses incurred can then be ascertained and recovered as if they were included in the decree.

In simple terms, when a builder is ordered to complete a project but refuses, the court is not helpless. It can allow the homebuyers or a neutral agency appointed by the court to get the work done and recover the money spent from the builder’s pocket. This prevents the decree from becoming meaningless and protects homebuyers who have already paid their hard-earned money.

The High Court asked the Tribunal to implement this provision because the 2022 order directing completion of construction is in the nature of specific performance. Section 57 of RERA equips the Tribunal with exactly these civil court execution powers so that its orders do not remain paper decrees.

Why This Ruling Matters for Homebuyers

This judgment removes a major procedural hurdle that was being used to push homebuyers back into the Section 7 route even when they already had a favourable execution proceeding pending. It affirms that individual allottees (or groups) can seek strong, direct enforcement tools without being told to start fresh proceedings involving all buyers. At the same time, it preserves the Tribunal’s discretion to protect collective interests by choosing an appropriate agency for completion.

The matter now returns to the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal, which will hear the amended execution applications and decide, on the facts of this project, whether and how to invoke the Rule 32(5) mechanism.

For thousands of homebuyers waiting in stalled projects across Maharashtra, the message is clear: persistent legal follow-up can unlock additional enforcement avenues when promoters drag their feet despite losing at the Tribunal level.

Also Read: MahaRERA Told Homebuyers to Cooperate. Tribunal Tells Builder to Pay Up

The post MahaRERA Tribunal Bound to Hear Prayer to Change Developer in Stalled Projects: Bombay HC appeared first on Square Feat India.

MMR witnessed 34,555 residential units launched in Q2 2026, up significantly from 28,160 units in Q2 2025. However, actual sales declined to 28,710 units from 31,280 units a year earlier. Total unsold inventory across the region climbed 9% year-on-year to 1,92,285 units by the end of June 2026, signalling that supply is currently outpacing demand.

Mumbai Remains the Clear Anchor

Mumbai city once again proved to be the powerhouse of the MMR market. It accounted for 65% of total launches with 22,360 units introduced in the quarter. Sales in Mumbai stood at 20,210 units, representing over 70% of regional absorption despite an 8% decline from the previous year. The island city also holds approximately 74% of total available inventory with around 1,42,620 units ready for buyers.

Anuj Puri, Chairman of ANAROCK Group, commented: “Despite softer sales, Mumbai continued to command 65% of total supply, and over 70% of total absorption. Total launches across MMR rose 23% annually to 34,555 units, led by Mumbai’s 22,360 units and a standout 54% jump in Navi Mumbai to 8,530 units. Thane also recorded healthy launch growth of 26% to 3,665 units, showing that supply expansion was broad-based rather than concentrated in just one market. Demand, however, did not match this pace.”

Micro-Market Performance

• Navi Mumbai: Emerged as the fastest-growing micro-market in terms of supply. New launches surged 54% year-on-year to 8,530 units. However, sales dropped 13% to 5,355 units, resulting in a sharp 23% increase in available inventory.
• Thane: Recorded a solid 26% growth in launches to 3,665 units. Sales remained relatively stable at 3,145 units, though inventory still rose 15% year-on-year.

The broader trend indicates developers are betting heavily on future demand, especially along key infrastructure corridors, while homebuyers appear to be exercising greater caution — possibly due to higher prices, rising interest rates, or waiting for more completed projects and better deals.

Implications for Homebuyers in Maharashtra

For prospective homebuyers, the rising inventory could translate into more choices, potential negotiations on pricing, and increased focus on ready-to-move or near-completion projects. However, sustained high supply without matching sales may exert pressure on developers to offer attractive payment plans, discounts, or additional incentives in the coming quarters.

The dominance of Mumbai proper highlights continued strong preference for established locations with better connectivity, social infrastructure, and resale potential. Areas in Navi Mumbai and Thane, while seeing aggressive new supply, may offer value opportunities for buyers willing to consider emerging pockets.

This Q2 performance underscores the resilience of MMR’s housing market even amid softening demand. With several major infrastructure projects progressing, including the impact of the Atal Setu corridor, analysts expect the market to regain momentum in the second half of 2026 if interest rates ease and economic sentiment improves.

Also Read: NCR & MMR Housing Prices Surge 49% in 5 Years, Unsold Inventory Plunges

The post MMR Housing Q2 2026: Mumbai Leads 65% Launches But Sales Dip 8% appeared first on Square Feat India.

The decision was announced through a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Housing Department on July 1, 2026 (Government Resolution No. धापुप्र-2026/प्र.क्र.71/झोपसु). The Special Cell has been created following directions issued by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis during a review meeting held on June 8, 2026, where he instructed officials to establish a dedicated mechanism for expediting pending permissions related to the project.

The latest move is expected to remove administrative bottlenecks and ensure that the ambitious redevelopment is completed within the stipulated timeline.

Why has the Special Cell been created?

The Dharavi Redevelopment Project requires approvals from multiple government departments and agencies, including land administration, urban planning, finance, environment, infrastructure and local civic authorities.

Obtaining these clearances through conventional processes often leads to delays. To address this, the Maharashtra government has now established a dedicated inter-departmental committee that will coordinate and expedite all pending approvals.

According to the Government Resolution, the objective is to:

• Ensure faster processing of statutory approvals.
• Resolve inter-departmental issues through coordinated decision-making.
• Monitor pending permissions across government departments.
• Enable timely implementation of the redevelopment project.
• Help complete the project within the prescribed timeline.

High-Level Committee to Oversee Approvals

The newly formed Special Cell will be chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary, Housing Department and will include senior officials from key government departments and agencies.

The members include:

• Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department
• Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department
• Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Finance Department
• Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Industries Department
• Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Environment Department
• Vice Chairman & CEO, MHADA
• Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division
• Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA
• Municipal Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)
• Managing Director, Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (MMRCL)
• Collector, Mumbai City
• Collector, Mumbai Suburban
• CEO and Special Officer, Dharavi Redevelopment Project (Member Secretary)

Whenever project-specific approvals are pending, the concerned department will participate in Special Cell meetings to take immediate decisions. Officials from other departments may also be invited whenever required.

What is the Dharavi Redevelopment Project?

The Dharavi Redevelopment Project is one of the world’s largest and most complex urban renewal programmes.

Spread over approximately 620 acres (around 251 hectares) in the heart of Mumbai, Dharavi has evolved over decades into a densely populated settlement comprising residential clusters, commercial establishments and thousands of small-scale manufacturing units.

The area is strategically located between Mumbai’s major business districts and transport corridors, making it one of the city’s most valuable land parcels.

The project aims to transform Dharavi into a modern mixed-use township while rehabilitating eligible residents and formalising infrastructure.

Who won the bid to redevelop Dharavi?

The redevelopment project is being implemented by Navbharat Mega Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NMDPL), a special purpose vehicle formed after the successful bid by the Adani Group in November 2022.

The Government of Maharashtra selected the Adani Group as the successful bidder after a competitive bidding process. The Special Purpose Vehicle is jointly owned by the Government of Maharashtra and the Adani Group, with the private developer holding the majority stake while the state retains equity participation.

The project is being executed under the supervision of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project/Slum Rehabilitation Authority (DRP/SRA).

How many people will be affected?

The redevelopment is expected to directly impact around 1 million (10 lakh) residents, making it one of the largest rehabilitation exercises undertaken anywhere in the world.

Apart from residents, the project also affects:

• More than 100,000 commercial establishments and small businesses, according to official project estimates and surveys.
• Thousands of micro, small and home-based manufacturing units.
• Informal industries involved in leather goods, garments, pottery, recycling, food processing and engineering.

The rehabilitation exercise includes residential units, commercial rehabilitation, rental housing, infrastructure upgrades and integrated urban planning.

What will the redevelopment include?

The redevelopment aims to create a modern urban ecosystem by providing:

• Free rehabilitation housing for eligible residents.
• Modern road network.
• Water supply and sewerage systems.
• Stormwater drainage.
• Open spaces.
• Schools and healthcare facilities.
• Commercial rehabilitation for eligible businesses.
• Public transport integration.
• Sustainable urban infrastructure.

The project also seeks to preserve Dharavi’s unique economic ecosystem by creating dedicated spaces for small businesses and traditional industries.

Why is the Special Cell important?

Infrastructure projects of this scale require approvals from numerous authorities before construction can proceed.

These include:

• Land-related permissions.
• Environmental clearances.
• Planning approvals.
• Infrastructure utility permissions.
• Financial approvals.
• Coordination with transport agencies.
• Municipal permissions.

The newly established Special Cell is intended to function as a single coordination platform where pending approvals can be reviewed and resolved collectively rather than department by department.

This is expected to significantly reduce administrative delays that often affect mega infrastructure and redevelopment projects.

Government’s Earlier Support

The Government Resolution also notes that:

• Dharavi Redevelopment was declared a “Vital Public Project” in 2007.
• Dharavi has been notified as a Special Planning Area, with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority designated as the Special Planning Authority.
• The state has already granted several policy relaxations through Government Resolutions issued in 2018 and 2022 to facilitate implementation.

The latest decision builds on these earlier measures by introducing an institutional mechanism dedicated solely to expediting approvals.

What Happens Next?

The CEO and Special Officer of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project will prepare and submit a list of all pending permissions before the Special Cell.

Meetings will then be convened based on the departments involved, enabling senior officials to resolve issues quickly and issue necessary approvals.

The move signals the Maharashtra government’s intent to accelerate the execution of the long-awaited redevelopment, which has witnessed multiple delays over the past two decades.

If implemented effectively, the Special Cell could become one of the key administrative mechanisms driving the transformation of Dharavi into a modern, planned urban district while rehabilitating nearly one million residents and protecting its vibrant commercial ecosystem.

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment Tender Cancelled

The post Maharashtra Sets Up Special Cell to Fast-Track Dharavi Redevelopment Approvals appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Peg: A Three-Day Rally Running Into a Friday Evening in Washington

The numbers from July 1 were genuinely impressive. The Nifty Realty index surged 1.59% to 842.70, with eight of ten index constituents advancing. Aditya Birla Real Estate was the standout, surging 5.66% in a single session. Prestige Estates climbed 2.02%, Phoenix Mills advanced 1.99%, Godrej Properties gained 1.67%, Sobha rose 1.61%, Lodha Developers added 1.6%, DLF gained 1.33%, and Anant Raj edged up 0.27%. Only Brigade Enterprises and Oberoi Realty edged marginally lower, down 0.23% and 0.12% respectively. The broader Sensex closed July 1 at approximately 76,972, with the Nifty50 holding above the 24,000 mark.

Put together with June 30’s broad-based advance — where nine of ten Nifty Realty constituents had risen even as the Sensex fell — the index has now rallied 2.91% across two sessions, building on what was already a 9.04% surge across the three sessions of June 14 to 16. From the June low of approximately 780, the Nifty Realty index has recovered to 842.70 — a move of roughly 8% in under three weeks, driven entirely by the Iran peace process and crude oil’s collapse.

Today, all of that is being tested. The US jobs report for June is due tonight Indian Standard Time, and markets are already pricing in anxiety. US Treasury yields spiked overnight as futures narrowed the odds of a Federal Reserve rate hike, with attention squarely on Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s appearance at a European Central Bank conference for any signals on tightening. Asian share markets opened July 2 in a cautious mood, reflecting that anxiety. For Indian realty stocks — rate-sensitive by definition — a strong US jobs number is the one development that could turn three days of buying momentum into a sharp reversal.

How Realty Stocks Are Opening

GIFT Nifty signals a muted to cautious open for the broader market on Thursday. The broader market’s ability to hold the Nifty above 24,000 — the level it reclaimed on July 1 — is the first test of the morning.

Realty stocks opened Thursday in consolidation mode, as the sector paused after two strong sessions to assess the macro landscape. DLF, which gained 1.33% on July 1, opened cautiously, with buyers and sellers relatively evenly matched in early trade. Godrej Properties, up 1.67% yesterday and closing at approximately ₹1,897, opened near those levels with thin early volume. Prestige Estates, Phoenix Mills, Sobha, and Lodha Developers — all among the previous session’s gainers — opened flat to marginally positive, reflecting a market in wait-and-see mode rather than one actively driving direction.

Aditya Birla Real Estate, Wednesday’s star performer with a 5.66% surge, came into Thursday’s session as a name to watch for profit booking — sharp single-session moves in smaller-cap realty names often attract selling in the subsequent session, particularly when the macro trigger is a global event rather than a company-specific development.

Brigade Enterprises, the persistent underperformer through the June recovery cycle, and Oberoi Realty, which slipped 0.12% even on a strong day for the sector, were both in focus as names where selling pressure appears to have its own logic independent of the index’s direction.

What Is Working

The three-session momentum itself is a signal. When the Nifty Realty index gains 2.91% over two sessions against a backdrop of Iran uncertainty, IT sector weakness, and a cautious global mood, it reflects something more deliberate than noise. Domestic institutional investors are the driving force — their consistent buying, including the ₹6,842 crore net purchase on June 30 and continued buying on July 1, reflects a conviction that real estate stocks at current levels — 15-20% below their CY26 highs — represent value.

Brent crude at $73.15 on July 1 is holding in the range that matters for developer margins. With Persian Gulf tanker traffic continuing to flow despite the stalled Iran-US negotiations, the physical oil supply situation is better than the diplomatic headlines suggest. That decoupling — where crude prices are behaving constructively even as geopolitical noise picks up — is constructive for the sector’s cost outlook.

The RBI’s benign policy stance continues to underpin sentiment. The repo rate at 5.25% with no imminent tightening signal means that home loan rates remain stable, affordability has not deteriorated, and developers with significant ongoing sales pipelines — DLF with its Privana projects, Godrej Properties with Samaris and its NCR launches, Prestige Estates in Hyderabad and Mumbai — can continue to convert strong project pipelines into bookings without demand-side interruption.

The Q1 FY27 presales season is also beginning to add its own positive signals. Lodha Developers — which posted a 25% year-on-year surge in pre-sales to ₹5,620 crore in the previous quarter — is expected to carry strong momentum into Q1 FY27. Godrej Properties, Sobha, and Prestige Estates are all tracking toward strong first quarters against a base that was already elevated. When individual developer presales numbers begin flowing through over the next four weeks, the sector may find a new catalyst that is independent of the global macro backdrop entirely.

What Isn’t Working

The US jobs report is the single most dangerous variable for Indian realty stocks in the near term. Bond markets are already pricing in growing odds of a Federal Reserve rate hike after US Treasury yields rose overnight, and a strong jobs number — above 200,000 payroll additions — would cement those expectations and potentially trigger a sharp selloff in rate-sensitive emerging market assets, including Indian real estate stocks.

The Iran-US diplomatic situation remains genuinely unresolved. Tehran’s refusal to meet directly with top US envoys who flew to the region on July 1, combined with the two sides still being far apart on a framework to fully open the Strait of Hormuz, means the peace process could stall, break down, or escalate at any point. If crude spiked back above $80 on fresh Strait of Hormuz disruption, the input cost relief that realty stocks have been pricing in would reverse quickly.

Brigade Enterprises has now been a consistent laggard through two full recovery cycles — the June 14-16 surge and the June 30–July 1 advance. The stock’s inability to participate meaningfully in sector-wide moves suggests company-specific selling pressure that is separate from the macro story. Investors holding Brigade need to monitor the name for any fresh negative triggers ahead of Q1 FY27 results.

FIIs remain net sellers in the broader market. While DII buying has provided a reliable floor, the absence of FII participation in the sector’s recovery means the rally lacks the institutional breadth needed to sustain a meaningful re-rating. Any reversal in DII sentiment — unlikely but possible if the US jobs data triggers a sharp global selloff — would expose the current rally’s dependence on domestic flows.

What to Watch Through the Day

The US jobs report for June is the dominant variable. Due after Indian market hours close, its impact will be felt in GIFT Nifty tonight and in Thursday’s pre-open signals. A number above 200,000 would likely push US Treasury yields higher and the dollar stronger — a combination that typically hurts emerging market equities including Indian realty stocks. A weaker number, below 150,000, would ease Fed rate hike fears and could give Indian equities — especially rate-sensitive sectors — fresh momentum heading into next week.

Through the Indian session itself, watch the Nifty50’s ability to hold above 24,000. A sustained trade below that level would signal that yesterday’s reclaim of the psychological mark was fragile, and realty stocks would likely give back some of their recent gains in sympathy.

Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s comments at the European Central Bank conference will set the global tone — any hint of a July or September rate hike from the Fed would be the session’s most important negative catalyst.

Within the sector, Aditya Birla Real Estate is the name to watch for profit booking after Wednesday’s 5.66% surge. Any consolidation in that stock that remains orderly — say, a 1-2% dip on thin volumes — would actually be a healthy sign for the sector. A sharper reversal would suggest that the July 1 move was short-covering rather than genuine accumulation.

The Q1 FY27 earnings calendar will begin filling up in the coming days. DLF, Godrej Properties, Prestige Estates, and Lodha Developers are the names where early presales disclosures could provide the next independent catalyst for the sector. Watch for any company-level announcements this week.

Three sessions of gains have given the Nifty Realty index something it has lacked through most of CY26 — momentum. Whether that momentum survives its first real test — a US jobs report that could change the entire global rate narrative in one evening — is the question July 2 is built around.

Also Read: Realty Stocks Open in the Green as Nifty Realty Inches Up; Iran Talks, Crude Ease in Focus

The post Realty Stocks Open on Edge as US Jobs Report Looms; Nifty Realty at 842 After Three-Day Rally appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the petition filed by developer Neelkanth Mansions & Infrastructure Private Limited, fully upholding the unilateral deemed conveyance of 929.84 square metres granted to the Neelkanth Greens Row House Co-operative Housing Society in Majiwada, Thane.

The society of 12 row houses, which received its Occupancy Certificate in 2007, forms part of the larger integrated project Neelkanth Greens spanning over 56,654 sq.mtrs with multiple buildings. The society had applied under Section 11(3) of MOFA after years of waiting and was awarded proportionate land (788.63 sq.mtrs plot area + 141.21 sq.mtrs recreational ground) by the District Deputy Registrar, Thane.

What the 2018 Government Resolution Actually Said

The dispute centred on the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018, which guides deemed conveyance procedures.

In normal multi-building layouts, the GR allows proportionate land division based on each society’s built-up area share, including open spaces and amenities. However, one specific clause states that in layouts where TDR is utilised, conveyance should be limited to plinth and appurtenant area.

Builder’s Attempt to Misuse the Rule — and How the Court Stopped It

The developer had used a massive 24,950.45 sq.mtrs of TDR across the entire layout. They argued that this triggered the restrictive clause, so the society should get only the small plinth + appurtenant area — not the proportionate share already granted.

The clear motive, the court noted, was to retain ownership of extra land for potential future profits from additional FSI or development rights.

Justice Marne rejected this interpretation sharply. The court clarified that the TDR clause in the 2018 GR is not an absolute prohibition but only a temporary/transitional measure. It was designed to prevent unfair imbalance when TDR is loaded selectively on certain buildings.

In this project, TDR was distributed uniformly across the layout as part of overall sanctioned planning. There was no selective loading causing imbalance. Therefore, the society was entitled to its fair 1.71% proportionate share based on built-up area.

The judgment emphasised that the GR provision exists to protect homebuyers, not to give developers a tool to hold back land indefinitely.

Key Takeaways for Homebuyers and Societies Still Awaiting Conveyance

• Societies in large phased or integrated townships can demand proportionate land even if TDR has been used in the project.
• Builders cannot mechanically cite the 2018 GR’s TDR clause to limit conveyance to just the building footprint.
• Early-completed phases do not need to wait for the entire project to finish before seeking deemed conveyance.
• For row house or similar societies, proportionate land is not only fair but often the only practical solution.
• Competent Authorities should prioritise proportionate division wherever possible and not allow the rule to benefit developers.

This order strengthens the hands of thousands of flat buyers across Maharashtra who are battling developers for full legal ownership of land and buildings through the deemed conveyance route under MOFA. It reinforces that homebuyers’ rights cannot be sidelined by technical loopholes.

Also Read: Bombay HC: Flat Buyers Win Deemed Conveyance Row

The post Homebuyers Score Big in Deemed Conveyance: Court Rejects Builder’s TDR Excuse appeared first on Square Feat India.