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

The post Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Held Hostage By Builder to Future FSI appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Case

The Upvan Woodlands CHS in Upper Govind Nagar, Malad East, was constructed on a portion of a larger five-plot layout admeasuring 4683.80 sq. mtrs. originally owned by Balrampur Chini Mills and later developed by Upvan Developers. The society’s building received its Occupation Certificate in May 2017, and the society was registered in July 2018. Despite repeated demands, the developer refused to execute conveyance, insisting — as per Clause 12 of the MOFA Agreement for Sale — that conveyance would be done only after completion of the entire layout development and sale of all flats in future buildings.

The Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies) rejected the society’s application for deemed conveyance on 20 May 2025, terming it premature and relying heavily on the contractual clause and the Marathon Era judgment.

Key Legal Findings of the Court

1. Statutory Timeline Overrides Contractual Clauses The Court emphatically held that the timeline prescribed under Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Rules, 1964 (conveyance within 4 months of society registration, or a mutually agreed fixed period) prevails over any contractual stipulation. Any clause that defers conveyance until an uncertain future event — such as completion of the entire layout — is void to that extent. The Court relied heavily on its earlier judgment in Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2025).
2. Proportionate / Part Conveyance Allowed in Layouts This is the most important takeaway for societies in large phased developments. The Court ruled that societies of completed buildings are entitled to conveyance of their proportionate share of land even before the entire layout is developed. This principle is backed by the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 issued by the Cooperation Department.
3. Misreading of Precedents Clarified The Court clarified that the Marathon Era judgment was wrongly interpreted by the Competent Authority. It does not support the developer’s stand of waiting for full layout completion. The Court also distinguished the Apex Court’s observations in Jayantilal Investments.
4. FSI and Developer Concerns Addressed While acknowledging that FSI calculations are done on the entire layout, the Court noted that the society had restricted its claim to only 2799.90 sq. mtrs. (as mentioned in the Second Schedule of the agreements). Granting conveyance of this portion will not prevent the developer from completing construction on the remaining plots (148 & 149). The society will have no right to interfere with the balance development beyond the originally disclosed terms.

Significance for Homebuyers and Housing Societies

This judgment is a major boost for homebuyers trapped in large layout projects where developers deliberately delay conveyance to exploit additional FSI/TDR that becomes available over time. By securing ownership of their proportionate land early, societies gain:

• Marketable title and better property valuation
• Ability to undertake redevelopment independently if needed
• Stronger legal position against promoter delays

The ruling reinforces the welfare objective of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and sends a clear message that private contractual clauses cannot defeat statutory protections for flat purchasers.

What Happens Next?

The Competent Authority must now issue the deemed conveyance certificate within six weeks. The developer’s request for stay on the order was rejected by the Court.

Legal experts believe this judgment, along with earlier rulings like ACME Enterprises and Lok Housing, will strengthen the hands of Competent Authorities while deciding similar applications. Societies stuck in similar situations should immediately review their agreements and file (or revive) applications for deemed conveyance.

Also Read: Conveyance Deed has to be registered within 3 months of Receiving OC

The post Major Win for Homebuyers: HC Allows Part Conveyance in Phased Layouts appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Gauri Godse in Second Appeal No. 425 of 2003, sets aside concurrent rulings of lower courts that had declared the Thane-based Dev Bappa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as the owner of the land and directed the original landowner to execute a conveyance deed in its favour.

The Core Dispute

The case centered on a plot of land in Thane on which a residential building had been constructed and occupied by members of the society. While flat purchasers had agreements in place with the developer or landowner, the legal ownership of the land itself remained with the original owner, Waman Narayan Bhave.

The society approached the court seeking a declaration that it was the owner of both the land and the building.

Chronological Background

1977 – Agreement to Sell
An agreement was executed between the landowner and the promoter of the proposed society for sale of the land. However, the transaction was never completed, and only a token amount was paid.

1981 – Suit Filed by Society
The society filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership. Crucially, it did not seek specific performance of the agreement or a direction for conveyance.

1989 – Trial Court Verdict
The trial court ruled in favour of the society, holding that agreements with flat purchasers under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963 (MOFA) entitled the society to ownership. It also directed execution of a conveyance deed.

2002 – Appellate Court Upholds Ruling
The District Court confirmed the decision, relying on MOFA provisions and the occupation of flats by members.

2003 – Second Appeal Filed
The landowner challenged both rulings before the High Court.

June 8, 2026 – High Court Judgment
After prolonged litigation, the High Court overturned both decisions.

Key Legal Findings

The High Court identified multiple legal flaws:

• No Title, No Ownership:
  The society failed to produce any valid title document establishing ownership of the land.
• Flat Agreements ≠ Land Ownership:
  Agreements with individual flat buyers under MOFA do not automatically transfer land ownership to the society.
• Relief Beyond Pleadings Invalid:
  The society had only sought a declaration, yet the lower courts granted conveyance—something never properly claimed.
• Specific Relief Act Violation:
  Under the Specific Relief Act 1963, courts cannot grant a mere declaration when a more substantive relief is available but not sought.
• Abandonment of Conveyance Claim:
  The society had attempted to amend its suit to include a conveyance prayer but later withdrew it. The High Court held that such a claim, once abandoned, cannot be indirectly granted.

Final Order

The High Court:

• Quashed and set aside the judgments of the trial and appellate courts
• Dismissed the original suit filed by the society
• Granted no costs

Why This Matters

This ruling has major implications for housing societies and homebuyers:

• Flat agreements alone do not confer ownership of land
• Societies must obtain conveyance or deemed conveyance to secure title
• Legal drafting and proper relief claims are critical
• Lack of conveyance could impact redevelopment and financing

For thousands of societies in Maharashtra awaiting conveyance, this judgment is a stark reminder: possession and agreements do not equal ownership.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces a fundamental principle in real estate law—the distinction between contractual rights and legal ownership. Without a valid conveyance, societies cannot claim title to land, regardless of long-term possession or flat sale agreements.

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

The post Societies Cannot Claim Land Ownership Just Based on Flat Agreements appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, in a detailed judgment pronounced today, quashed the order dated 8 July 2025 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Thane, and directed the competent authority to issue a fresh certificate of deemed conveyance within eight weeks.

The court held that the society is entitled to exclusive conveyance of 2201.56 square metres comprising the plinth area of 1151.56 sq.m. and appurtenant open/setback area of 1050 sq.m., along with an undivided proportionate share of 703.62 sq.m. in the layout’s Recreational Ground (RG).

Background of the Dispute

The Rashesh Cooperative Housing Society was formed in December 2015 after the developer, Shreeji Developers (of which respondents Nos. 4 to 6 are partners), constructed the building. Despite completion of construction and issuance of an occupation certificate in 2013, the developer failed to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the society.

After multiple attempts, the society approached the District Deputy Registrar under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) seeking deemed conveyance. Aggrieved by the limited relief granted earlier, the society approached the High Court, which had earlier remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Court’s Key Findings

In a well-reasoned judgment, Justice Borkar clarified important legal principles regarding conveyance in multi-building layouts:

• The promoter has a statutory obligation under Section 11 of MOFA to convey the land and building to the society.
• Conveyance cannot be restricted merely to the building footprint (plinth area). It must include appurtenant area — the open spaces, setbacks, and areas necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the building as per sanctioned plans and building regulations.
• In TDR-loaded layouts, the 2018 Government Resolution requires separate identification of plinth area and appurtenant area.
• The court accepted the figures provided in the developer’s architect certificate (based on the sanctioned plan dated 29 March 2019) for plinth and appurtenant areas.
• However, the society was also held entitled to its proportionate undivided share in the common Recreational Ground, which cannot be claimed as exclusive possession.

The court emphasised that MOFA is a welfare legislation meant to protect flat purchasers from promoters who delay or deny title even after receiving full consideration.

Directions Issued

The High Court directed:

• The District Deputy Registrar to issue a fresh deemed conveyance certificate incorporating the exact areas mentioned above, along with survey numbers and layout details.
• The developer (respondent Nos. 3 to 7) to extend full cooperation and provide all necessary documents.
• In case of non-cooperation, the Registrar can proceed unilaterally.

There shall be no order as to costs.

This judgment is being seen as a balanced yet pro-homebuyer order that strikes a middle ground between the society’s higher demand and the developer’s restrictive stand, while reinforcing the rights of housing societies to receive proper title in large layouts.

Also Read: Bombay HC Strips Developer of Mulund Project, Society Wins Back Land

The post Housing Society Wins Key Victory in Deemed Conveyance Dispute Against Developer appeared first on Square Feat India.

For years, thousands of flat buyers across India have lived in a peculiar legal limbo — they own their apartments, they pay their maintenance, their cooperative housing society is registered and functioning, and yet the land their building stands on remains in the name of the builder. The reason given, almost always, is that some other wing or tower in the same large layout is still under construction, and the builder insists that conveyance of land will happen only once everything is done. A Supreme Court bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has now firmly shut the door on that argument.

On April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Mahanagar Realty, a Pune-based developer, against a Bombay High Court judgment delivered in February 2026. In doing so, it has affirmed a ruling that carries consequences far beyond the plot of land in Dhankawadi, Pune that sparked the original dispute. The judgment establishes, with the Supreme Court’s seal of approval, that a completed housing society is entitled to its proportionate share of land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) — regardless of whether the builder has finished constructing other buildings in the same layout.

How It All Began

The story begins in the early 2010s, when Mahanagar Realty proposed a large residential development on a 22,609 square metre plot on Pune-Satara Road in Dhankawadi. The project was to consist of four wings — A, B, C, and D — forming three independent sub-projects. Wings A and B were clubbed together as “Ganga Ishanya AB,” Wing C was a separate project called “Ganga Ishanya C,” and Wing D was envisioned under the name “Ganga Nakshatra.”

Flat buyers began signing agreements from 2011 onwards. Over the next several years, construction of Wings A, B, and C was completed. The occupancy certificate for Wings A and B came through in September 2018, and for Wing C in June 2021. Two separate co-operative housing societies were duly registered — one for Wings A and B, and another for Wing C. Members moved in, the buildings were fully functional, and yet no conveyance of land was executed by the developer in favour of either society.

2011

Original layout sanctioned for Wings A, B, C and a small ground+one floor Wing D. Flat purchase agreements begin.

2017–2022

Developer repeatedly revises sanctioned plans. Wing D is quietly expanded from a small commercial structure to a proposed 26-floor, 203-unit residential tower — without flat buyers’ explicit consent.

Sept 2018 & June 2021

Occupancy certificates issued for Wings A&B and Wing C respectively. Two co-operative housing societies registered. Land conveyance still not executed by developer.

2023

Both housing societies file Application No. 167 of 2023 before the District Deputy Registrar under Section 11 of MOFA, seeking deemed conveyance of their proportionate land share.

November 17, 2023

Competent Authority grants deemed conveyance — 11,890.53 sq.m. to Ganga Ishanya AB and 4,174.39 sq.m. to Ganga Ishanya C, calculated proportionately based on the 2018 sanctioned plan.

February 23, 2026

Bombay High Court (Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh) dismisses Mahanagar Realty’s writ petition, fully upholding the Competent Authority’s order.

April 10, 2026

Supreme Court dismisses Special Leave Petition. The societies’ land rights are now final and binding.

The Developer’s Objections

Mahanagar Realty’s opposition to the conveyance was not a blanket refusal — the developer acknowledged that some land had to be conveyed. The dispute was about how much. The developer produced an architect’s certificate showing smaller land entitlements for the two societies, which would have left a larger portion available for the under-construction Wing D. The developer argued that the competent authority had conveyed more land than the societies were entitled to, and that this made it practically impossible to complete Wing D as per the building permissions already granted.

The developer also leaned on a contractual clause present in some flat purchase agreements, which stated that conveyance would be executed to an apex society — comprising all three sub-projects — only after the last building in the entire layout was completed. In essence, the argument was: wait for Wing D to finish, and then everything will be conveyed together. The developer further contended that without a formal architect’s certificate placed before the competent authority, there was no proper basis for the area calculation.

What the Courts Found

The Bombay High Court was unimpressed by each of these arguments. On the question of the architect’s certificate, Justice Deshmukh noted that the calculation was straightforward arithmetic — the constructed built-up area of each wing as a proportion of total permissible FSI, multiplied by the total plot area, as directed by a Government Resolution of June 22, 2018. The sanctioned plan of 2018 was already on record and the built-up areas were undisputed. No separate architect’s certificate was needed for a calculation of this nature.

The architect’s certificate the developer sought to rely on was, in any event, disqualified on multiple grounds — it had been produced before the High Court for the first time (never placed before the competent authority), it was based on a revised 2022 sanctioned plan rather than the 2018 plan, and it came with a disclaimer that its figures were subject to a pending decision before the Pune Municipal Corporation. The court declined to place any reliance on it.

A builder cannot use the unfinished portion of a layout as a shield to indefinitely delay handing over land rights to residents whose buildings are long completed.

On the contractual clause requiring conveyance only after the apex society is formed, the High Court cited a coordinate bench ruling in Lok Housing & Construction Ltd vs State of Maharashtra, which had held that such clauses directly conflict with Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules. The law does not permit a developer to tie conveyance to an indeterminate future event — the completion of another building — no matter what the agreement says. A contractual term cannot override a statutory right.

The court went further and addressed what it found to be the real motive behind the developer’s resistance. Over the years, Mahanagar Realty had progressively revised the sanctioned plan for Wing D — from a modest ground-plus-one commercial structure envisioned in the 2011 plans to a 26-floor, 203-unit residential tower. To fund this enhanced construction, the developer had been loading additional Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The mathematical consequence of loading more TDR is that the proportionate share of already-completed buildings in the total plot area gets diluted. By opposing the area conveyed to the two societies, the court found, the developer was effectively asking the flat buyers of Wings A, B, and C to subsidise the enhanced construction of Wing D with their own land entitlement.

The Supreme Court, on April 10, 2026, saw no reason to interfere with this reasoning. The petition was dismissed without qualification.

What This Means for Flat Owners Across India

The immediate effect of this ruling is concrete and clear for the residents of Ganga Ishanya — their land is now theirs, legally and finally, without any further obstacle. But the significance of this judgment reaches well beyond one housing complex in Pune.

What This Ruling Means for You — If You Live in a Large Layout

• If your building is complete and your co-operative housing society is registered, you are entitled to seek deemed conveyance of your proportionate land share — even if other wings or towers in the layout are still being built.
• A builder cannot use the “wait for the apex society” or “wait for the last building” argument to delay your land rights indefinitely. Such clauses in sale agreements have been held to conflict with MOFA Rules.
• The proportionate area you are entitled to is calculated based on the sanctioned plan at the time your building was completed — the developer cannot dilute your share by loading additional TDR for other under-construction wings.
• You do not need to wait for the developer to voluntarily execute the conveyance deed. Section 11 of MOFA allows your society to approach the Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar) directly for deemed conveyance.
• The Government Resolution of June 22, 2018 provides a clear formula for calculating proportionate land area in multi-building layouts. Competent authorities are bound to follow it.

India’s real estate landscape is full of large township projects and multi-tower layouts where some buildings have been completed and occupied for years while other phases remain under construction. In many of these cases, flat buyers have received their homes but not the land beneath them. Developers have routinely cited the ongoing construction in other phases as a reason to defer conveyance. This judgment categorically rejects that position.

The ruling also sends a pointed message about TDR manipulation. Where a developer seeks to enhance construction in an unfinished wing by loading additional development rights, courts will not allow this to come at the cost of residents in already-completed buildings. The FSI and TDR position as it stood when a building was completed will be the basis for calculating that building’s land entitlement — it cannot be retroactively diluted.

For housing societies considering action against their developers, this judgment provides a clear and well-reasoned legal foundation. The path to the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA is open, the formula for calculation is settled, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that no contractual sleight of hand can take away what the law guarantees.

As for Mahanagar Realty, the developer retains the remaining land and is free to continue constructing Wing D. But if the developer wishes to claim additional TDR benefits for an expanded Wing D, the High Court has made clear that the appropriate forum is a civil court — not a proceeding that compromises the land rights of the residents next door.

The post Landmark Verdict: Housing Societies Need Not Wait for Builder to Complete Entire Project to Claim Their Land, Rules Supreme Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, in his judgment dated 25 March 2026 in Writ Petition No. 973 of 2023, quashed the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar and restored the Assistant Registrar’s decision rejecting the buyers’ membership claims.

The Case

The petitioner societies — Dheeraj Dreams Building No.1, 3, 4A, and 4B CHS Ltd. — manage several wings of the residential complex. The Full Occupancy Certificate was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in 2009. Floor plans attached to all legitimate flat purchases clearly marked certain open spaces on the 8th and 15th floors as refuge areas — compulsory unconstructed safety zones required under building regulations for emergency evacuation during fire or other hazards.

Despite this, Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL), the developer, executed five registered Agreements for Sale on 30 April 2019 with two individuals, Hukamsingh B. Sewadsha and Chetansingh B. Sewadsha, describing these refuge areas as residential flats (including units like A-1506, D-1501, etc.).

By then, key legal milestones had already passed:

• The societies were registered in 2008-09 with no unsold flats remaining. HDIL did not join as a member, which it was legally required to do under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) if any flats were unsold.
• In 2017, the societies obtained a Certificate of Entitlement for Deemed Conveyance, which divested the developer of further rights to sell or deal with the property.

The two buyers approached the societies seeking membership based on these agreements. When refused, they moved the Assistant Registrar under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act. The Assistant Registrar rejected their application on 19 October 2020, observing that the developer had no right to sell non-existent flats.

The buyers then filed revision applications. The Divisional Joint Registrar reversed the order on 22 July 2022, directing the societies to admit them as members, and an execution order followed in October 2022.

Court’s Strong Observations

Justice Pooniwalla held that:

• The so-called “flats” were refuge areas, not constructed residential units. They were shown as open spaces in the original plans and continue to be assessed as refuge areas by municipal authorities (with no property tax levied on them as flats).
• HDIL had no authority to sell these spaces after the Deemed Conveyance entitlement certificate was issued.
• Forcing the societies to admit the buyers would violate Section 154B-5 of the MCS Act, which prohibits admitting more members than the actual number of flats available in the society.

The court distinguished this case from earlier precedents (such as the Videocon Appliances judgment), noting that the issue here was not merely “unauthorised construction” but the complete non-existence of any flat. A society cannot be compelled to breach a statutory provision.

The High Court quashed both the revision order of 22 July 2022 and the subsequent execution order. It restored the Assistant Registrar’s order of 19 October 2020, declaring that the societies were right in refusing membership.

Significance

This judgment reinforces that:

• Refuge areas, meant for life safety, cannot be converted or sold as private flats.
• Once the Deemed Conveyance process begins, a developer loses the right to create new sales in the project.
• Cooperative societies have strong legal grounds to resist attempts to inflate membership beyond the actual number of flats.

The refuge areas remain under the control and possession of the societies.

The buyers’ agreements for sale were not directly declared void in this writ petition (a separate civil suit for that purpose is reportedly pending), but the ruling makes it clear that such transactions carry no enforceable right to membership in the housing society.

This decision is likely to be welcomed by housing societies across Maharashtra facing similar attempts to sell common or prohibited spaces.

Also Read: HDIL Homebuyers Get No Relief From MahaRERA

The post HDIL Sold Non-Existent Flats, Society Denies Membership, Court Says Society Is Right appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, in his detailed judgment pronounced on February 24, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 11328 of 2023, allowed the petition filed by Magnum Unit ‘A’ CHS Ltd. and Magnum Unit ‘B’ CHS Ltd. The petitioners, representing owners of row houses and bungalows developed in the 1980s, successfully challenged the January 9, 2023, order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai City (3), which had granted deemed conveyance of approximately 10,097.84 sq. mtrs. out of the total 13,569 sq. mtrs. plot to Magnum Tower CHS (Respondent No. 3).

Background of the Dispute

The land in question, Plot No. 357, Survey No. 41 (Part), C.T.S. No. 1/175 of Oshiwara Village, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, was originally owned by Oshiwara Land Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Development rights were acquired by Lokhandwala Estate & Development Company Ltd. through agreements in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The development occurred in phases:

• Magnum Unit A (approx. 3,545.95 sq. mtrs.) and Magnum Unit B (approx. 4,389.82 sq. mtrs.) were constructed first as row houses/bungalows with appurtenant exclusive garden areas. The petitioners claimed peaceful possession for over 35 years, predating the high-rise construction.
• The remaining Floor Space Index (FSI) was utilized to build Magnum Tower, a high-rise occupying approx. 4,345.29 sq. mtrs.

Old agreements, including a Tripartite Agreement (1979), Package Deal Agreement (1982), and Supplementary Agreement (1984), were cited by the petitioners as conferring exclusive garden and open space rights to row house owners. These rights were reiterated in later documents and MOFA agreements.

In 2014, Magnum Tower filed a civil suit claiming joint use of a strip of land but lost before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi.

Key Procedural History

• In 2016–2017, Magnum Tower applied for deemed conveyance of the entire plot (13,569 sq. mtrs.) under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).
• The application was rejected on January 24, 2017, primarily because granting conveyance would prejudice the rights of other building owners (the petitioners) and included disputed common areas like recreation grounds and internal roads.
• In 2022, Magnum Tower filed a fresh application seeking conveyance of 10,097.84 sq. mtrs. (slightly reduced area).
• On January 9, 2023, the Deputy Registrar granted the conveyance, issuing a certificate under Section 11 of MOFA.

The petitioners challenged this in the High Court, arguing that the 2023 order effectively overruled the final 2017 decision without jurisdiction.

Court’s Reasoning and Key Holdings

Justice Borkar extensively discussed the applicability of res judicata to proceedings before quasi-judicial authorities like the Deputy Registrar under MOFA. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer (2000) and Faime Makers Private Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar (2025), the court held:

• Once a quasi-judicial authority decides a matter on merits and the order attains finality (without appeal or liberty to reapply), it binds the parties.
• The 2017 rejection was on merits: the authority examined entitlement and found that conveyance of such a large area, including common facilities, would harm other societies’ rights.
• The 2023 claim was substantially the same — only a marginal numerical adjustment — arising from the same cause of action and transaction.
• Allowing re-agitation would undermine finality, lead to endless litigation, and permit parties to bypass higher remedies by filing modified applications.

The court distinguished collateral/incidental findings from those “directly and substantially in issue.” Entitlement to conveyance over the disputed land was central to both proceedings.

The judgment also noted procedural lapses in the 2023 order, including failure to appoint an independent architect for measurement disputes (as per 2018 Government Resolution) and improper inclusion of disputed garden areas and access roads, contrary to precedents like Mazda Construction Co. v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS (2012).

Operative Directions

The High Court:

• Allowed the writ petition.
• Quashed and set aside the January 9, 2023, order and consequential certificate.
• Granted liberty to Magnum Tower to pursue remedies before a competent civil court for substantive relief on title/rights.
• Directed any such civil suit to be decided expeditiously, preferably within one year.
• Stayed the operation of the judgment for eight weeks on Magnum Tower’s request.

No costs were imposed.

This ruling underscores the limited scope of MOFA Section 11 proceedings — meant for summary enforcement of statutory conveyance rights — and protects long-possessing flat/row house owners from unilateral claims that reopen settled disputes.

Also Read: The Rise of Lifestyle Clubhouses

The post High Court Sides with Lokhandwala Row House Societies, Cancels Magnum Tower’s Land Conveyance appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, in a detailed judgment pronounced today in Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2022 and connected matters, upheld orders passed by the Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies) granting unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to the 1960s when a large parcel of land in Ratan Nagar (Dahisar/Borivali East) was originally held by individuals like Surendranath Jain, Rajkumar Seth, and others. In 1963, agreements were made to transfer it to promoters who formed Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (the “Mother Society” or Ratan CHS), registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Ratan CHS subdivided the land into smaller plots (e.g., A-7, A-20/21, A-22, A-24, A-26) and allotted them to individuals or groups on what parties later claimed were leasehold terms. These allottees then entered development agreements with builders, primarily entities linked to Paramanand Builders LLP (formerly Parmanand Builders Pvt. Ltd., also known as Geopreneur Corp. Pvt. Ltd. in some petitions).

The builders constructed multi-storey buildings, sold flats to individual buyers on an “ownership basis,” and flat purchasers formed their own cooperative housing societies, including:

• Siddhraj Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Patan Jain Mandal Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Shri Sai Sadguru Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Gauri Sadhana Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
• Greenways Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Jai Ashish Coop. Housing Society Ltd.

After construction was complete, societies formed, and possession handed over, these smaller societies applied for deemed conveyance under MOFA Section 11(3). The Competent Authority granted unilateral deemed conveyance, treating the promoter (primarily Ratan CHS, as it held title and enabled construction) as obligated to transfer full ownership rights in the land and building.

The Core Argument and Court’s Rejection

Developers and Ratan CHS challenged these orders in the High Court, arguing:

• Original allotment letters, development agreements, and flat purchase agreements contemplated only leasehold rights (e.g., 99-year lease), not outright sale or conveyance of land ownership.
• Clauses repeatedly referred to future execution of a “lease” or “indenture of lease,” so societies could claim only lease assignment, not full ownership.

The court firmly rejected this, holding that MOFA is welfare legislation designed to protect flat buyers from indefinite retention of land title by promoters/builders.

Key observations by Justice Borkar:

• Broad definition of “promoter” under MOFA Section 2(c) includes anyone who “causes” construction — here, Ratan CHS obtained Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) and Commencement Certificate in its name and permitted development, making it a promoter.
• Section 11 mandates transfer of the promoter’s entire right, title, and interest in land + building to the flat buyers’ society. Private contracts cannot override this statutory duty.
• No valid lease existed: Municipal permissions initially banned leasing/resale for 10 years due to public housing reservation. No registered lease deed was ever executed afterward, so the land remained in ownership with the promoter (Ratan CHS).
• Clauses in agreements referring to “lease” cannot defeat MOFA — promoters cannot use wording to permanently retain land while selling flats on ownership basis.
• Deemed conveyance reflects the promoter’s actual entitlement: full ownership here, so full conveyance to societies.

The court dismissed all petitions (including cross-petitions by Ratan CHS), upheld the deemed conveyance orders, and directed authorities to implement them. It clarified that deeper title disputes, if any, can be pursued in civil court, but MOFA proceedings stand.

What This Means for Homebuyers

This judgment is a powerful reminder:

• Once a building is complete, society formed, and statutory period lapsed, flat buyers have a statutory right to deemed conveyance — not a favour.
• Builders/landowners cannot hide behind old agreements or “lease-only” clauses to block ownership transfer.
• MOFA overrides private contracts where they conflict with buyer protection.
• Societies facing similar delays should apply under Section 11(3) without fear — the law is on their side.

Homebuyers in Maharashtra can now approach competent authorities more confidently for deemed conveyance, knowing courts will enforce full title transfer when builders delay.

The ruling reinforces that housing is not just about flats — it’s about owning a share in the land beneath.

Also Read: Stuck With Deemed Conveyance? Maharashtra Govt Launches Statewide 4-Day Camp for Housing Societies

The post Bombay HC: Flat Buyers Win Deemed Conveyance Row appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar dismissed three writ petitions filed by Nusli Neville Wadia (Administrator of the Estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw), Radhakrishna Properties Pvt. Ltd., and Ivory Properties and Hotels Ltd., challenging the Competent Authority’s order dated 29 August 2022. The order had granted deemed conveyance of approximately 16,747.19 sq.m of land plus 2,955.39 sq.m of recreational ground area (totaling about 22% of the larger 89,056 sq.m plot bearing CTS No. 1406A/14) on a freehold/ownership basis.

Background of the Dispute

The larger property originally belonged to the Estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw, managed by Nusli Neville Wadia. In 1995, development rights were handed over to Ivory Properties (a Raheja group entity), which later sub-contracted to Radhakrishna Properties. The project was planned as a phased layout with 10 buildings under the name “Raheja Metroplex.”

In 2002–2003, Radhakrishna Properties executed MOUs with the Imitation Jewellery Manufacturers’ Association, reserving Building No. 4 exclusively for association members. Between 2003–2005, registered Agreements for Sale under Section 4 of MOFA were executed with individual buyers (association members), with Wadia as a signatory. Buyers paid 12% of the consideration directly to Wadia as land price.

Building No. 4 was completed in 2005, with an Occupation Certificate issued and possession handed over. The society (IJMIMA) was registered in 2009. However, no conveyance was executed for nearly two decades, amid inter-promoter disputes and stalled development on the remaining plots.

In December 2021, the society demanded conveyance. When ignored, it applied in April 2022 to the District Deputy Registrar (Competent Authority under Section 11 MOFA) for unilateral deemed conveyance. After notice and hearing, the authority granted it on 29 August 2022, applying the Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 and an Architect’s certificate dated 6 April 2022 for proportionate area calculation.

Key Challenges by Petitioners

The petitioners argued:

• Contractual documents (1995 agreements and 2002–2003 MOUs) contemplated only long-term leasehold rights, not freehold conveyance.
• Conveyance could occur only after full layout completion and formation of an Apex Body.
• The granted area was excessive (MOUs mentioned minimum 6,900–7,240 sq.m).
• Procedural lapses: defective Form X, invalid service (especially on Radhakrishna Properties at an old address), suppression of MOUs, and misjoinder of unbuilt buildings.
• The society, registered as a general co-operative, was ineligible under MOFA.

Court’s Detailed Reasoning

Justice Borkar held that:

• Statutory MOFA Agreements for Sale (registered and executed with buyers) prevail over earlier internal agreements/MOUs. These agreements explicitly contemplated transfer of title in the land, with Wadia receiving land consideration directly.
• No formal lease deed was executed; promoters cannot retain superior title while conveying limited rights.
• Building No. 4 was completed in 2005 with no further development for ~17–20 years — promoters cannot indefinitely delay conveyance on pretext of future plans, defeating MOFA’s protective intent.
• The 22% proportionate area was correctly calculated per the 2018 GR formula, sanctioned plan, and Architect’s certificate. Disputes on exact area/title remain open in civil suit.
• Procedural objections failed the prejudice test (following Supreme Court precedents like State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh): Two promoters appeared and contested on merits; public notice was published; no real prejudice shown despite technical defects in service/Form X/misjoinder.
• MOUs were referenced in MOFA agreement recitals — no material suppression proved.
• MOFA does not restrict eligibility to “housing societies”; commercial societies (covering shops/offices) qualify.

The court clarified that Section 11 proceedings are summary and do not finally adjudicate complex title disputes — parties may pursue civil remedies for deeper issues.

Lawyers and Appearances

• For Nusli Neville Wadia (WP/14690/2022): Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meena Doshi and Mr. Hasan Mushabber (i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah).
• For Ivory Properties (WP/112/2023) and respondent in WP/14690/2022: Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aniruth Haryeni, Mr. Hemanta, and Mr. Rahil Shah (i/b Veritas Legal).
• For Radhakrishna Properties (WP/1584/2024) and respondent in other petitions: Mr. Bharat Zaveri with Ms. Aishwaryajeeta Tawde (i/b Kanga & Co.).
• For the society (respondent): Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Viraj Parikh (i/b Mr. Dharmesh S. Jain).
• State represented by various AGPs.

The petitions were reserved on 4 February 2026 and pronounced on 24 February 2026. All writ petitions stand dismissed, with the impugned order upheld. No costs awarded.

This ruling reinforces MOFA’s objective: protecting flat purchasers from indefinite delays by promoters, even in phased/commercial projects.

Also Read: Stuck With Deemed Conveyance? Maharashtra Govt Launches Statewide 4-Day Camp for Housing Societies

The post Nusli Wadia Loses Bid to Block Deemed Conveyance: Bombay HC Ends 17-Year Wait for Malad Society appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Core Issue: Builders’ Failure to Convey Title

Under MOFA (Section 11), once a builder sells flats and buyers form a cooperative society, the promoter is legally bound to execute a conveyance deed transferring the land and building title to the society. If the builder refuses or delays, the society can apply for deemed conveyance — an automatic legal transfer ordered by the Competent Authority (usually the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies).

Many societies face prolonged delays, disputes over membership, pending appeals against registration, or claims of future development consents, leading to rejection of applications. This leaves flat owners without clear title, hindering loans, redevelopment, or resale.

Case Background: Kartik Regency in Belapur, Navi Mumbai

• The building (Kartik Regency) was constructed on ~1479.10 sq m land (CTS Nos. 100, 101, 103–107) with Commencement Certificate (Sept 13, 2007) and Occupation Certificate (March 21, 2009).
• Builders (Vijay Agre & Vidya Vijay Agre) sold most flats before the OC but failed to form the society or execute conveyance.
• Flat buyers formed the society (with 16 of 28 owners); applied for deemed conveyance.
• Deputy Registrar rejected it on August 26, 2025, citing partial membership, pending appeal against society’s registration (status quo order in place), and promoters’ claims of 2021 meeting minutes/consents allowing further construction on open land.

The society challenged this rejection via writ petition.

High Court’s Landmark Ruling (Justice Amit Borkar, Feb 6, 2026)

The court allowed the petition, quashed the rejection, and directed the Deputy Registrar to grant deemed conveyance within six weeks for the exact 1479.10 sq m area as per sale agreements, Commencement/Occupation Certificates, and Architect’s Certificate.

Key Holdings (Simplified):

• Section 11 proceedings are summary (quick, not full trial). Authority must check prima facie: valid MOFA agreements, property description, flats sold, builder’s default — not resolve complex title disputes.
• Core documents (agreements + certificates) clearly established entitlement; builder’s failure undisputed.
• Pending registration appeal doesn’t invalidate society — registration valid until cancelled.
• 2021 meeting minutes/consents don’t override MOFA obligation; no clear waiver of conveyance right; authenticity disputed.
• New construction permissions (challenged separately) irrelevant to conveyance for completed building.
• Builder’s delay can’t block statutory right; deemed conveyance protects buyers from indefinite uncertainty.

The court rejected promoters’ stay plea, emphasizing MOFA’s protective intent.

Why This Matters for Other Societies

This judgment strengthens homebuyers’ position: Collateral disputes (membership challenges, informal consents, future plans) cannot derail Section 11 applications if basic documents align. Societies facing similar rejections can cite this ruling to argue for limited enquiry and prompt relief. It promotes faster resolution, clearer titles, and discourages builder tactics to retain control.

Societies in similar situations should gather MOFA agreements, municipal certificates, and apply under Section 11 — and approach High Court if wrongly rejected.

Also Read: Developers Mandated to Execute Conveyance Deed Within 3 Months of Occupancy Certificate

The post Bombay High Court Empowers Homebuyers: Grants Deemed Conveyance Relief to Society, Reinforcing Flat Owners’ Right Against Builder Delays appeared first on Square Feat India.