The judgment, delivered by Justice Amit Borkar, brings to an end a two-decade-long legal battle involving a Kandivali housing project and sends a strong message across Maharashtra’s real estate sector: certainty, transparency, and buyer consent are non-negotiable.

The Case at a Glance

The dispute arose from a residential project known as Dayal Smruti, located at Shantilal Modi Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai.

• Developer: Rachana Developers
• Flat purchasers: Over 40 homebuyers
• Core dispute: Whether the project would be governed by a condominium under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act (MAO Act) or a cooperative housing society under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

While this question may appear technical, the outcome determines who controls the building, how common areas are owned, voting rights, management structure, and future redevelopment decisions.

What Triggered the Dispute

Between 2003 and 2004, Rachana Developers sold flats to multiple purchasers under agreements that contained a crucial clause.

The clause gave the builder “discretion” to later decide whether:

• a cooperative housing society would be formed, or
• the property would be submitted to a condominium by executing a declaration under the MAO Act.

In 2004–2005, the developer executed and registered a Declaration under the MAO Act, claiming that the project had become a condominium.

However, most flat purchasers disagreed.

Why Homebuyers Objected

The homebuyers raised serious objections:

• The declaration was not signed by all flat purchasers
• It was signed by only seven persons, six of whom were allegedly related to the promoter
• Purchasers had paid money for formation of a cooperative society
• They were never clearly told upfront that a condominium would be imposed

Despite this, in 2006, the buyers themselves applied to register a cooperative housing society.

The Deputy Registrar approved the society’s registration in 2007 — triggering a legal battle that would last nearly 20 years.

The Builder’s Legal Fight

Rachana Developers challenged the society’s registration, arguing:

• The condominium declaration was already registered
• Once a property is submitted to the MAO Act, a society cannot be formed
• The Registrar had no jurisdiction to register a cooperative society

The builder lost at:

1. Deputy Registrar
2. Divisional Joint Registrar
3. State Government (Revisional Authority)

Still, the developer persisted — finally approaching the Bombay High Court.

What the High Court Examined

The Court closely examined two key laws:

1. Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA)

• A welfare legislation meant to protect homebuyers
• Requires the exact nature of the organisation (society, company, or condominium) to be disclosed at the agreement stage
• Does not allow uncertainty or future discretion

2. Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act (MAO Act)

• Applies only if all owners submit the property
• Requires a collective, valid declaration
• Cannot be triggered by unilateral or selective consent

The Court’s Key Findings

The High Court made several crucial observations:

Builder Discretion Has Limits

Any agreement clause giving the builder open-ended discretion to decide later is illegal and contrary to MOFA.

No Unilateral Condominium

A condominium cannot be created unilaterally by the builder.
A declaration signed by a few purchasers — especially promoter-linked buyers — has no legal validity.

Registration Does Not Cure Illegality

Merely registering a declaration does not validate it if statutory requirements are violated.

Buyers’ Rights Come First

MOFA requires certainty at the time of agreement. Buyers must know what they are signing up for.

The Final Verdict

The Bombay High Court:

• Dismissed the builder’s writ petition
• Upheld the registration of the cooperative housing society
• Confirmed that authorities acted correctly and lawfully

In simple terms, the Court ruled:

A builder cannot use cleverly drafted clauses to override homebuyers’ statutory rights.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling has far-reaching implications:

• Strengthens homebuyers’ bargaining power
• Prevents forced condominiums
• Ensures transparency at the agreement stage
• Acts as a warning to developers using vague clauses
• Reinforces MOFA as a buyer-protection law

For thousands of homebuyers across Maharashtra, this judgment is a clear victory — affirming that their collective choice matters more than a builder’s convenience.

Conclusion: A Long Struggle, A Clear Win

What began as a technical dispute in a Kandivali housing project has now become a precedent-setting judgment.

After nearly two decades of litigation, homebuyers have emerged victorious — with the Bombay High Court firmly stating that housing laws exist to protect people, not promoters.

Also Read: Bombay HC: Maintenance Charges Must Match Your Flat Size

The post Homebuyers – Not Builders – Decide Whether a Society or Condominium Will Be Formed appeared first on Square Feat India.