The Bombay High Court has upheld a unilateral deemed conveyance that transfers ownership of land — not merely the remaining lease — to a Juhu cooperative housing society whose building was constructed on land given on a 98-year lease in 1975.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed Writ Petition No. 5991 of 2026 filed by Rohini Gupta and another, legal heirs of the original landowner, and refused to interfere with the 23 June 2025 certificate issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City-3. The certificate conveys 3,901.70 sq.m. of land at Survey No. 71, CTS No. 1049/D of Juhu Village in favour of Respondent No. 3, the Queens Park Co-operative Housing Society.

The judgment, reserved on 25 August 2026 and pronounced on 8 September 2026, is significant for hundreds of Mumbai societies standing on private, collector or institutional leased land. It holds that a landowner who actively participates in causing a building of flats to be constructed can be treated as a “promoter” under Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). Once that happens, Section 11 obliges him to convey his right, title and interest in both the land and the building.

How a 1975 lease became a housing project

Late Kundanlal Laxmichand Gupta was granted a larger plot of 4,460.37 sq.m. at Juhu. By an Indenture of Lease dated 4 February 1975 he leased the land to Deepak B. Raheja and another for 98 years, expiring on 14 October 2072.

The lessees constructed the building known as Queens Park on 3,901.70 sq.m. of that land and sold flats under agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA. Flat purchasers formed the society. On 17 March 1978 the developers assigned their leasehold rights in the said property to the society for the remainder of the 98-year term.

On paper, therefore, the society already held what the developers possessed: a lease ending in 2072. Ownership of the land remained with the Gupta family.

Society seeks ownership, not just the leftover lease

In 2008 the society applied to the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA for unilateral deemed conveyance of the land itself. The original landowner was impleaded. After notice was issued in his name, the petitioners informed the authority that he had died in 1981. They did not appear to contest the application.

The Competent Authority allowed the application on 23 June 2025 and issued a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of the 3,901.70 sq.m. plot in favour of the society.

The landowners say they first learnt of that order when they were served in another writ petition filed by two society members (WP 15689 of 2025), which was dismissed on 1 December 2025 because it had been filed by members rather than by the society. They then filed the present petition.

What the landowners argued

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that:

• There was no “failure” by the promoter under Section 11(1) or 11(3) because the developers had already assigned the lease in 1978.
• A society cannot obtain rights higher than those the promoter possessed. The promoter had only leasehold rights; therefore only a lease could be conveyed.
• The landowners were never promoters. There was no privity of contract between them and the flat purchasers.
• Covenants in the lease that the building would vest in the lessor at the end of the term did not mean the lessors lost title to the land.
• Flat purchasers had paid ₹10 per sq.ft. towards purchase of the right of reversion, but that private arrangement did not bind the landowners, who were never paid the agreed premium.
• Having accepted assignment of the lease in 1978, the society was estopped from claiming ownership.
• The order was a nullity because it was passed against a dead person and in violation of natural justice.

They relied on Vaidehi Akash Housing, Grand Paradi CHSL, A.H. Wadia Trust and other decisions that restrict what a society can obtain in deemed conveyance to whatever title the promoter actually holds.

Court: landowner can also be a “promoter”

The Court framed the core issue as whether the petitioners could be treated as promoters under Section 2(c) of MOFA.

Section 2(c) defines a promoter as a person who “constructs or causes to be constructed” a building of flats for sale. The phrase “causes to be constructed,” the Court held, is deliberately wide. A landowner who merely hands over vacant land and stays out of the project remains only a lessor. A landowner who participates in the construction — deciding timelines, materials, plans, insurance and, crucially, taking back the building itself — wears two hats: owner and promoter.

The 1975 lease was not an ordinary lease. Justice Marne examined its clauses and found active participation:

• The lessor fixed a three-year period for completing the building.
• He could insist on sound materials and require correction of any deviation from municipal sanctioned plans.
• Insurance of the building had to be in the joint names of lessor and lessees; if the lessees failed, the lessor could insure it at their cost.
• On expiry or earlier determination of the lease, the lessees had to deliver up not only the land but the buildings, fixtures and fittings.
• The lessor had a right of re-entry for breach or non-payment of rent.
• During the term the buildings belonged to the lessees; on determination they would “automatically vest in the Lessor without payment of any compensation.”

The Court said this arrangement showed the construction was “caused” by the landowner through the lessees. It relied on its earlier decision in Haroon Hussain Khatri (WP 7627 of 2026, decided 19 June 2026), where a similar vesting-of-building clause was enough to treat the lessor as a promoter. The Juhu lease, the Court observed, showed even clearer participation.

Once the landowners are promoters, Section 11(1) attaches to them. They must complete their title and convey their right, title and interest in the land and the building to the organisation of flat purchasers.

₹10 per sq.ft. collected for the “right of reversion”

The Court also examined Clause 40 of the original agreements for sale. It recorded that the plot was leasehold, that the vendors had negotiated with the lessor to purchase the right of reversion, and that each purchaser would contribute ₹10 per sq.ft. of saleable built-up area for that purchase. The amount was to be deposited and later transferred to the society.

That clause, the Court said, showed a specific representation to buyers that ownership of the land would be perfected and passed on. Clause 34, which spoke of assigning only leasehold rights, had to be read with Clause 40. The project was never intended to remain only a lease in perpetuity.

Even independently of that clause, the Court held that the main right of the society flowed from the landowners’ status as promoters.

Why the 1978 assignment did not close the case

The landowners’ second objection was jurisdictional: because the lease had already been assigned, there was no “failure” under Section 11(3) and the Competent Authority could not act.

The Court rejected this. There can be more than one promoter. The developers fulfilled only part of the statutory obligation by assigning the lease. The landowners had still not conveyed their ownership interest in the land. Qua them, failure continued. The Competent Authority therefore had jurisdiction.

The Court also held that there can be no estoppel against a statutory right under MOFA. Execution of the 1978 assignment did not bar the society from seeking the landowners’ title. It cited Prestige Garden A-1 CHSL on this point.

On the argument that an agreement cannot be stretched beyond a lease, the Court relied on Haresh Vijaysinh Bhatia (2025). That decision holds that if the promoter is the owner of the land, Section 11 does not permit him to convey only a lease. The words “in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4” cannot defeat the mandate to convey “his right, title and interest in the land and building.” A contractual covenant for mere lease cannot wipe out the statutory right of the society.

Natural justice and the dead-person objection

The petitioners admitted they received the notice issued in their father’s name and wrote to the authority. They chose not to appear. The Court held they took a calculated chance and cannot now complain of violation of natural justice. Prejudice was also not made out, the Court said, because on the view it took they had already been divested of the title they were illegally retaining.

The Court added a caution that matters for both sides: a deemed conveyance certificate under Section 11 is not a final determination of title. The Supreme Court in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade has held that the remedy of a civil suit remains open. The landowners can still sue to establish their rights.

Why the Court called the result “just and fair”

Justice Marne observed that the order places the society in ownership of the land on which its building stands and will allow it to go in for redevelopment without the landowners creating a hindrance. If the landowners’ case were accepted, they would become owners even of a redeveloped building when the original lease expires in October 2072 — an outcome the Court considered contrary to the object of MOFA.

The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

What this means for other societies on leased land

The judgment does not say that every society on leased land automatically gets ownership.

The usual rule remains: the society gets what the promoter has. If the promoter is only a lessee and the landowner stayed out of the project, deemed conveyance will ordinarily be of the lease, not of the freehold.

The exception confirmed here applies when:

• the lease itself shows the landowner caused the construction (control over plans, materials, timelines, insurance, re-entry); and/or
• the building is to vest in the lessor at the end of the term, so that without roping in the lessor the society can never get ownership of the structure; and/or
• the sale agreements contemplated purchase of the reversionary rights.

Societies on BMC, MHADA, collector, port trust or private leased land will now examine their lease deeds and old MOFA agreements against these tests. Landowners who structured 1970s and 1980s projects as “lease plus building-back” arrangements face a clearer statutory obligation.

The decision also underlines that assignment of lease by the developer is not the end of the Section 11 story if another person who fits the definition of promoter still holds the underlying title.

For Queens Park, the immediate effect is a registered deemed conveyance of 3,901.70 sq.m. in Juhu. For the rest of Mumbai’s older leasehold societies, the judgment is a new template — fact-specific, but no longer easy to dismiss as impossible.

Also Read: Bombay HC upholds stamp duty on 1987 development deals as conveyance

The post Bombay HC Allows Deemed Conveyance of Leased Juhu Land; Treats Landowners as Promoters appeared first on Square Feat India.

The leave and licence agreement was registered in August 2026. The property is located in Kapol CHS Ltd. in Juhu, one of Mumbai’s most sought-after luxury residential neighbourhoods.

The agreement provides for a starting monthly rent of ₹16 lakh, with the rent increasing by 5% every year.

₹16 lakh monthly rent in the first year

According to the registration documents, the bungalow has a built-up area of 724.90 sq m, equivalent to approximately 7,803 sq ft.

The monthly rent has been fixed at ₹16 lakh for the first year.

With a 5% annual escalation, the monthly rent is expected to rise to approximately ₹19.45 lakh by the fifth year.

Based on the agreed escalation, the total rental value over the 60-month lease period is estimated at approximately ₹10.61 crore.

₹48 lakh security deposit

The agreement also provides for a ₹48 lakh security deposit.

The transaction attracted stamp duty of approximately ₹2.71 lakh, while the registration charges were ₹1,000.

The five-year tenure means that the property will remain under the leave and licence arrangement for 60 months, subject to the terms and conditions of the registered agreement.

Nearly 7,800 sq ft bungalow in Juhu

The property has a built-up area of 724.90 sq m, or approximately 7,803 sq ft.

The bungalow is situated within Kapol CHS Ltd. in Juhu.

The size and location of the property help explain the substantial rental value. At ₹16 lakh a month in the first year, the annual rent works out to ₹1.92 crore.

On the stated built-up area, the initial monthly rent translates to roughly ₹205 per sq ft per month, although rental comparisons should be made carefully because the agreement refers to built-up area and factors such as land value, bungalow configuration, amenities, parking and location can significantly affect rents.

Juhu continues to command a premium

Juhu remains one of Mumbai’s most established luxury residential markets.

The western Mumbai neighbourhood is known for premium residences, celebrity homes, high-end restaurants, hotels, retail and entertainment infrastructure. Its coastal location, established social infrastructure and connectivity to important parts of Mumbai have helped it maintain strong demand for high-value residential properties.

Unlike apartment markets where developers can add significant new supply, premium standalone bungalows in established neighbourhoods are relatively limited.

This scarcity can support both capital values and rental values, particularly for large properties with prime locations and established infrastructure.

What does the deal mean for Mumbai’s luxury rental market?

The transaction highlights the rental potential of ultra-premium residential assets in Mumbai.

A monthly rent of ₹16 lakh places the property firmly within the city’s high-end rental segment. More importantly, the 5% annual escalation ensures that the rental income rises progressively during the five-year lease.

For landlords, long-term leases with predetermined annual escalation can provide greater visibility on rental cash flows.

For tenants, however, the annual escalation means that the cost of occupying the property increases significantly over time. The monthly rent rises from ₹16 lakh in the first year to approximately ₹19.45 lakh in the fifth year.

Over five years, therefore, the tenant’s total rental outgo is more than five times the first-year annual rent because of the annual escalation.

Why celebrity-owned properties attract attention

Transactions involving celebrity-owned real estate often attract attention because they provide a window into the economics of Mumbai’s luxury property market.

In this case, the significance of the transaction is not simply the identity of the landlords. The agreement demonstrates the rental value that a large residential property in an established Mumbai micro-market can command.

The transaction also highlights the growing importance of rental income as an investment strategy for owners of high-value residential properties.

Rather than selling a premium property, owners can potentially generate substantial recurring income by leasing it over a longer period.

A ₹10.61 crore rental stream over five years

The most significant number emerging from the agreement is the estimated ₹10.61 crore cumulative rental value.

The income is spread over five years rather than being received upfront. The first year’s rental income is approximately ₹1.92 crore, increasing every year because of the 5% escalation.

By the fifth year, the annualised rent reaches approximately ₹2.33 crore.

This structure provides the landlords with a steadily increasing rental income stream while giving the tenant contractual visibility over the property for the five-year period.

Who are the landlords?

Ajay Devgn is one of the prominent actors in Hindi cinema and has also worked as a filmmaker and producer. He made his acting debut with Phool Aur Kaante in 1991 and subsequently appeared in films including Dilwale, Zakhm, Company, The Legend of Bhagat Singh, Omkara, Singham and Drishyam.

He has also received multiple honours during his career, including National Film Awards for Best Actor.

Veena Devgan, Ajay Devgn’s mother, is associated with Hindi film production and has maintained a relatively private profile. She was associated with the production of the 1999 film Dil Kya Kare, which featured Ajay Devgn, Kajol and Mahima Chaudhry.

What does this mean for homebuyers and investors?

Although the property is a luxury bungalow and the transaction is far removed from Mumbai’s mainstream housing market, it offers some insights for property investors.

First, location remains one of the biggest drivers of rental value. Juhu’s established ecosystem and limited availability of premium standalone properties allow well-located assets to command substantial rents.

Second, rental escalation can materially increase returns over a longer holding period. A property generating ₹16 lakh a month initially can generate considerably more by the end of a five-year lease when annual escalation is built into the agreement.

Third, investors should distinguish between headline rental income and actual investment returns. Property taxes, maintenance, repairs, society charges, insurance, vacancy risk and other ownership costs can affect the net income generated by a property.

For ordinary homebuyers, the transaction is therefore less a benchmark for Mumbai’s broader residential market and more an indicator of the premium commanded by scarce, high-value properties in established luxury neighbourhoods.

The bigger picture

Mumbai’s luxury residential rental market continues to be supported by a combination of limited premium housing supply, strong demand from high-income households and the city’s concentration of business, entertainment and professional activity.

The Ajay Devgn-Veena Devgan transaction adds another high-value rental deal to this segment.

With a starting rent of ₹16 lakh a month, a 5% annual escalation and a five-year tenure, the bungalow is estimated to generate ₹10.61 crore in cumulative rent.

The transaction therefore underscores an important feature of Mumbai’s luxury property market: for owners of scarce, well-located assets, rental income can itself become a substantial source of long-term wealth creation.

Source: Property registration documents reviewed by Square Yards on the Maharashtra Inspector General of Registration (IGR) website.

Also Read: Ajay Devgan to get 7.25 lac Rent per month 

The post Ajay Devgn, Mother Veena Lease Juhu Bungalow for 5 Years, to Earn ₹10.61 Crore appeared first on Square Feat India.

The project involves the redevelopment of a prominent and established commercial shopping complex in Juhu and is expected to further strengthen Sri Lotus Developers’ presence in Mumbai’s premium commercial and retail real estate market.

The proposed development is expected to have an estimated total carpet area of approximately 3.46 lakh sq. ft. and will comprise premium commercial and retail spaces.

According to the company, construction is expected to commence in Q3 FY28, with completion targeted within approximately three to four years from the start of the project.

The appointment adds another major project to Sri Lotus Developers’ growing redevelopment portfolio. The company has been focusing on redevelopment and joint development opportunities, particularly in Mumbai’s premium and supply-constrained locations.

Juhu redevelopment targets premium commercial demand

The company said the project is positioned to benefit from the limited availability of fresh commercial supply in Juhu, a prime Mumbai micro-market.

Anand K Pandit, Chairman & Managing Director, Sri Lotus Developers & Realty Limited, said commercial establishments in Mumbai’s prime micro-markets are increasingly considering redevelopment to unlock value, upgrade infrastructure and create modern spaces that meet current occupier requirements.

According to Pandit, Juhu’s strategic location and limited fresh supply make it well positioned to benefit from this trend.

He added that the company expects continued demand from institutional occupiers for professionally executed commercial redevelopment projects and intends to focus on design quality and long-term value creation.

Project adds to company’s redevelopment strategy

The Juhu project is part of Sri Lotus Developers’ strategy of expanding its presence in high-value, supply-constrained pockets of Mumbai’s commercial real estate market.

With an estimated 3.46 lakh sq. ft. of carpet area and a projected GDV of ₹1,600 crore, the redevelopment is expected to create a sizeable premium commercial and retail asset in one of Mumbai’s established western suburbs.

The company said the project is consistent with its broader strategy of deepening its footprint in commercial redevelopment while continuing to pursue redevelopment and joint development opportunities across Mumbai.

Also Read: India Home Sales Rise 3% in H1 2026 as Housing Market Remains Resilient

The post Sri Lotus Developers to Redevelop Juhu Commercial Complex with ₹1,600 Crore GDV appeared first on Square Feat India.

Lease Details

• Monthly rent: ₹6 lakh
• Total rent for term: ₹72 lakh
• Lease duration: 12 months
• Apartment size: 365 sq. m. (3,929 sq. ft.)
• Parking: 4 car spaces
• Stamp duty: ₹36,000
• Registration fee: ₹1,000

The same apartment in Prime Beach, Juhu had earlier been leased to her under an agreement registered in October 2024, indicating continuity of tenancy.

Why Juhu Remains a Celebrity Magnet

Juhu is among Mumbai’s most prestigious residential markets due to:

• proximity to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport
• connectivity via Western Express Highway and JVPD roads
• access to commercial hubs like Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri, and Santacruz
• presence of high-net-worth residents and film celebrities

Several major Bollywood personalities, including Amitabh Bachchan, Akshay Kumar, Ajay Devgn, Varun Dhawan, and Hrithik Roshan have owned or lived in the area, reinforcing its elite reputation.

About Shraddha Kapoor

Shraddha Kapoor debuted with Teen Patti (2010) and rose to fame after Aashiqui 2 became a major hit. She has since starred in commercially successful films like Stree, Saaho, and Tu Jhoothi Main Makkaar. Known for versatility across genres, she is also a playback singer and brand ambassador for several major companies.

Real Estate Insight:
Celebrity rental deals like this often indicate market confidence in prime micro-markets. Even high-net-worth individuals frequently prefer leasing in ultra-premium locations rather than locking capital into ownership.

Also Read: Aditya Rents A Flat For 3 Years In Bandra West

The post Bollywood Actress Shraddha Kapoor Renews Juhu Apartment Lease for ₹72 Lakh appeared first on Square Feat India.

The apartment, measuring 81.84 sq. m. (approximately 881 sq. ft.), incurred a stamp duty payment of Rs.36.66 lakh and registration charges of Rs.30,000. Situated on Juhu Tara Road, this property forms part of a highly coveted residential enclave favored by Bollywood celebrities.

Adding an intriguing twist to the property’s history, the flat boasts a star-studded background. In 2019, actress Shraddha Kapoor gifted her 50% share—measuring 40.92 sq. m.—in the property to her father, Shakti Kapoor, as a heartfelt gesture. The remaining 50% was jointly owned by Shraddha Kapoor and her mother, Shivangi Kapoor, with Shivangi opting to sell her share to Shakti Kapoor for Rs.1.30 crore. The registration document for the transfer between Shraddha and Shakti attracted a stamp duty of Rs.5.14 lakh, while the one for the transaction between Shivangi and Shakti required Rs.7.80 lakh.

Shortly after acquiring the property from his daughter and wife, Shakti Kapoor leased it out on rent, further adding to its notable history. Known for his iconic roles in films such as Raja Babu, Andaz Apna Apna, and ChaalBaaz, Shakti Kapoor’s enduring career in Hindi cinema underscores his status both on and off the screen.

This sale not only highlights the high value associated with Juhu real estate but also illustrates how personal family gestures and celebrity connections can significantly influence property ownership dynamics in Mumbai’s competitive market.

Also Read: Bhushan Kumar Of T-Series Paid Rs 167 Crore For Juhu Bungalow

The post SHAKTI KAPOOR SELLS JUHU APARTMENT FOR RS.6.11 CR; SHRADDHA KAPOOR HAD GIFTED 50% SHARE IN 2019 appeared first on Square Feat India.

Alia Bhatt is the daughter of noted film director and producer Mahesh Bhatt, and actor Soni Razdan.

She has one sibling Shaheen and a half-sister and a half-brother. She got married to Ranbir Kapoor and gave birth to a daughter recently.

She has multiple awards to her credit and was also part of the movie RRR which bagged the Oscars for the original song.

Ok, so you may be wondering why a real estate news portal is talking about Alia and also praising her as being a good sister.

Property transfers always make a piece of good news and the cherry on the cake is when it involves a celebrity.

So here the celebrity is Alia Bhatt, and the story involves two of her properties. Both properties are located in Juhu.

Alia Gifted both properties to her sister Shaheen. These two properties are located on the second floor of Gigi Apartments, Juhu, The ready reckoner rate of the properties comes to Rs 7.68 crore.

Alia Bhatt bought these properties in February 2015 from actor Anupam Kher and his wife Kirron Kher. She had paid Rs 8.99 Crore for buying these both flats.

According to the documents accessed by SquareFeatIndia, the gift deed between Alia and her sister Shaheen was signed on April 10, 2023.

A stamp duty of Rs 30.75 lakh was paid for the registration of two gift deeds. The gift deeds mention Alia Bhatt as well as her name after marriage Alia Ranbir Kapoor.

The details of the flats include two flats on the second floor of the Gigi Apartments, one of the flats measures 889.75 sq ft, whereas the second one measures, 1197 sq ft, with every apartment there’s one open car park too.

A detailed message sent to Alia Bhatt didn’t get us any response.

Also Read: Alia Bhatt Buys Property in Juhu

The post Alia Bhatt Gifts Properties Worth Several Crores to Sis appeared first on Square Feat India.