The court quashed a City Civil Court order that had protected these structures, describing the societies’ prolonged litigation as “sheer abuse of due process of law,” “dishonest conduct,” and “compulsive litigation.” Justice Jadhav emphasized that public interest must prevail over private claims, especially in a congested metropolis like Mumbai where such roads are essential for easing traffic and pedestrian movement.

The Long-Standing Dispute

The DP road in question is a planned east-west link connecting Sahar Road to Sai Mandir Road via Jeevan Vikas Marg in Andheri East. The land was legally conveyed to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in 1984 through an agreement and deed, with the property card confirming BMC ownership ever since.

The Kalpita Enclave societies, developed in the 1970s-80s, had fully utilized the Floor Space Index (FSI) benefits from this road land during construction. Despite this, they enclosed and blocked the stretch passing through their layout, treating it as private internal access.

An adjoining slum plot, recently redeveloped under a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme by Panom Developers LLP, completed its portion of the road (with an average width of 10.84 meters—sufficient for vehicles) and handed it over to BMC.

A 2023 High Court order had temporarily allowed the societies to retain their gate, cabin, and fencing until the adjoining road was ready, after which they were to remove them within two weeks of BMC’s notice. The societies, however, resisted, insisting on a uniform 13.4-meter width throughout the entire stretch—a condition not mentioned in the original order.

Public Interest Over Private Convenience

Justice Jadhav rejected this demand outright, noting that the societies have “no right whatsoever” to dictate terms to the planning authority. “The connector feeder road… is the need and necessity of the hour for the benefit of pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic to ease congestion in the area,” he observed.

Nearby societies (including Shiv Siddhi Vinayak CHS and others representing hundreds of families) and the SRA developer intervened, highlighting how the road’s opening would benefit thousands of residents by reducing travel time and bottlenecks.

The judge refused to stay the order for any appeal, stating that “in the cross fire of the lis between the parties… the public at large is the loser.” He directed the societies to remove the structures within one week, failing which BMC can demolish them with police assistance and open the road immediately.

Costs were imposed on the three societies—initially ₹1 lakh each, reduced to ₹25,000 each on request—to be paid to court libraries.

A Precedent for Mumbai’s Urban Woes

This ruling sends a clear signal: Housing societies cannot use courts to perpetuate encroachments on public infrastructure. With Mumbai grappling with chronic traffic and delayed DP road implementations, the judgment prioritizes commuter relief and reinforces that planned roads must serve the public, not private interests.

Local residents and commuters have welcomed the decision, with many hoping it accelerates similar stalled projects across the city.

Also Read: Top 5 Bollywood Real Estate Deals of 2019

The post Mumbai Societies Can’t Block Public Roads Anymore appeared first on Square Feat India.

The decision came in a long-running dispute at Treasure Park, a registered condominium in Pune, where owners of larger flats were paying the same monthly maintenance as those with smaller flats.

The Case at a Glance

• Society: Treasure Park, Pune — 11 buildings, 356 apartments.
• Law Involved: Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970.
• Main Issue: Should all flats pay equal maintenance, or should it depend on flat size?

The Dispute

For years, Treasure Park billed all flat owners the same maintenance, regardless of whether they owned a 2BHK or 4BHK. Owners of smaller flats objected, saying this violated Section 10 of the Apartment Act, which requires common expenses to be shared in proportion to each owner’s “undivided interest” in the common areas and facilities.

In November 2020, five owners of smaller flats filed a complaint with the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

Timeline of Events

• Nov 2020: Complaint filed by small flat owners.
• 08 July 2021: Deputy Registrar orders proportional maintenance billing based on flat size.
• 13 May 2022: Co-operative Court upholds the Deputy Registrar’s order.
• Aug 2022: Society implements proportional billing.
• 04 August 2025: Bombay High Court dismisses challenge by large flat owners, confirming the proportional system.

What the Court Said

Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that both the Deed of Declaration of the society and the Apartment Act clearly require maintenance charges to be linked to the size/value of the flat.

The court rejected arguments that larger flats should not pay more since all residents use the facilities equally. It said proportionate contribution is part of the law and cannot be overridden by previous society resolutions for equal charges.

Impact of the Ruling

• Larger flats will pay higher maintenance than smaller ones.
• Societies under the Apartment Act must follow proportional charging.
• Equal-charge systems can be challenged if they violate the law.

Also Read: SEBI advocates regularization of Fractional Ownership Platforms

The post Bombay HC: Maintenance Charges Must Match Your Flat Size appeared first on Square Feat India.