The Complaint

M/s India Connection Impex Pvt. Ltd. had booked Flat No. 1203 in Building No. 2, Wing “I” of the project “Bharat Arcade” in Vasai, Palghar district, developed by M/s Kartik Realtors. A registered Agreement for Sale was executed on 24.12.2013 for a total consideration of Rs. 22,00,000. The complainant paid Rs. 20,65,000 towards this consideration, along with Rs. 1,55,000 towards stamp duty and registration charges and Rs. 67,980 towards service tax, taking the total amount paid to Rs. 22,87,980.

With the project remaining incomplete years after the agreement was signed, the complainant sought withdrawal from the project and refund of the entire Rs. 22,87,980, along with interest at 18 percent per annum as stipulated under Clause 42 of the agreement.

Why The Refund Was Allowed On The Consideration Amount

The Agreement for Sale did not specify a date for handing over possession. MahaRERA applied the principle from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima, treating three years from the agreement date as a reasonable period for completion. This period expired on 24.12.2016, yet the project remained ongoing even at the time of the order.

The authority noted that the promoter’s own submission, stating that “almost all construction work has been completed” and that possession would be handed over “as expeditiously as possible,” itself confirmed that the project was still incomplete years after the reasonable completion period had lapsed.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., MahaRERA held that this continued non-completion amounted to a failure by the promoter to fulfil its obligation, entitling the complainant to withdraw under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act and claim refund with interest.

Why Stamp Duty, Registration Charges And Service Tax Were Excluded

This is where the order becomes instructive for homebuyers pursuing refund claims. MahaRERA held that the statutory entitlement under Section 18 extends only to refund of the amount received by the promoter in respect of the apartment. Since stamp duty, registration charges and service tax are not amounts received by the promoter, but payments made to government authorities and tax departments, they could not be directed to be refunded by the promoter under Section 18.

The order draws a distinction between two categories of payment: money that flows to the builder as consideration for the flat, and money that flows to the state or central government as statutory levies. A promoter’s liability under Section 18 is confined to the first category, because the provision speaks of refunding “the amount received by the promoter.” A builder cannot be made to answer for charges it never collected or retained.

Accordingly, the refund was restricted to Rs. 20,65,000, the amount actually paid to and received by Kartik Realtors, and the claims for Rs. 1,55,000 towards stamp duty and registration and Rs. 67,980 towards service tax were rejected.

Interest At 18 Percent Also Declined

The complainant’s claim for interest at 18 percent per annum, based on Clause 42 of the agreement, was also not accepted in full. MahaRERA held that the rate of interest payable under Section 18 is governed by the statutory framework, not by a contractual clause. Interest was instead directed at the State Bank of India’s Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2 percent, as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2017.

The Final Order

MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande directed Kartik Realtors to refund Rs. 20,65,000 to the complainant, along with interest at SBI’s Highest MCLR plus 2 percent from the date of each payment till actual realisation, within 30 days of the order. No order was made as to costs.

The Larger Takeaway For Homebuyers

This order reinforces a pattern seen across MahaRERA rulings: while Section 18 gives allottees a strong right to exit a delayed project and recover their money with interest, that right is tied strictly to what the promoter actually received. Stamp duty and registration charges go to the government exchequer, and service tax or GST goes to the tax department, not the builder’s account. Homebuyers seeking full recovery of these statutory costs may need to pursue separate remedies with the relevant government authority, since MahaRERA’s refund jurisdiction under Section 18 does not extend to money the promoter never held.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post Why Stamp Duty And Registration Charges Cannot Be Refunded By A Builder Under RERA appeared first on Square Feat India.

The documents were provided by CRE Matrix, a real estate data analytics firm.

All three units are identical in size — RERA carpet area of 194.10 sq m (2,089.29 sq ft) each — and come with rights to three car parking spaces. The project, registered under MahaRERA number P51800033870, is a mixed-use development on Final Plot No. 8 of Town Planning Scheme II, Bandra (CTS No. F/1176). It comprises three basements, two commercial floors, five podium levels and 16 residential floors. Possession is scheduled by 31 December 2026. Amenities listed include a well-designed entrance lobby, visitor lounge, gymnasium, common recreational area and swimming pool.

Flat 1802 (18th floor / 12th habitable floor) Purchaser: Shantanu Mukherji alone. Sale consideration: ₹15,87,86,040. Agreement dated 20 August 2026 (registered as BOMB15-18150-2026). Stamp duty and registration fees totalled ₹95,58,000 (calculated at the higher 5% + 1% rates on the agreement value).

Flat 1801 (18th floor / 12th habitable floor) Purchaser: Radhika Mukherji alone. Sale consideration: ₹15,87,86,040. Agreement dated around 19–20 August 2026 (registered as BOMB15-18149-2026). Stamp duty and registration fees totalled ₹79,70,000 (at 4% + 1% rates).

Flat 1502 (15th floor / 9th habitable floor) Purchasers: Radhika Mukherji and Shantanu Mukherji jointly. Sale consideration: ₹15,87,86,040. Agreement dated around 20 August 2026 (registered as BOMB15-18148-2026). Stamp duty and registration fees totalled ₹95,58,000 (at the higher rates).

The two 18th-floor apartments sit on the same level, while the third is three floors lower. In each case a portion of the consideration (₹87,86,040) had already been paid at the time of the agreement. The buyers’ address is listed as Fortune Enclave, Khar West.

The combined outlay of nearly ₹47.64 crore for three large apartments in a prime Bandra West location underscores continued demand for high-end residential inventory in the suburb even as the project nears completion. NVK Realty LLP holds a 61% undivided share in the land; the remaining 39% is held by co-landowners Mala Sinha and Pratibha Rokad.

Also Read: SBI Acquires Siddhivinayak Enterprises’ Kharadi Building for ₹414 Crore

The post Shaan Buys 3 Bandra Flats Worth ₹47.64 Cr with Wife appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case (Complaint No. CC12400159) was filed by Shilpa Amol Vyawahare and Amol Vijaykumar Vyawahare against Acme Housing India Private Limited. The complainants sought interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act for the delayed handover of Flat No. 2107 in the project “Gingelia Residential” (MahaRERA registration P51700001033). The Agreement for Sale was executed on 17 October 2017.

The matter was heard on 29 January 2026 and reserved for orders. At that stage, the pleadings were complete, evidence had been led, and arguments had concluded. A decision on merits was expected.

What followed changed the course of the proceedings. The promoter secured a Part Occupation Certificate on 4 April 2024. The complainants took possession of the flat on 11 October 2024. On 16 April 2026, both parties jointly filed a settlement letter before MahaRERA.

The settlement went far beyond a simple withdrawal. The parties recorded that all claims and disputes arising from the complaint stood fully and finally resolved. Crucially, they stated that although the complaint had already been heard and reserved for orders, neither side would challenge, enforce or act upon any order that the Authority might still deliver. They further agreed that if no order had yet been passed, the complaint could simply be treated as withdrawn.

Member Ravindra Deshpande took note of these terms in the final order dated 6 August 2026. In a significant observation, the Authority held that the dispute was private in nature and that the parties had voluntarily arrived at a comprehensive settlement. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating the rival claims on merits. The settlement was found to be lawful, voluntary and complete. There was no reason to refuse to take the consent terms on record.

Accordingly, MahaRERA:

• Took the settlement on record,
• Disposed of the complaint in view of the amicable settlement, and
• Made no order as to costs.

The order is noteworthy because it shows that even after a case has reached the reserved-for-orders stage, parties retain the freedom to settle and expressly waive their right to the very decision the Authority is about to pronounce. By accepting this arrangement, MahaRERA has reinforced that its role is to resolve disputes, not to keep them alive when both sides have chosen finality through settlement.

For homebuyers and promoters, the message is practical. Once possession is taken and commercial differences are resolved, parties can close the chapter completely — including by agreeing that any residual order will remain unenforced. The Authority, in this instance, respected that choice.

Also Read: Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project

The post Homebuyer & Builder Tell MahaRERA: We Won’t Act on Any Order You Pass appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order was passed by Member Mahesh Pathak on 5 August 2026 in Complaint No. CC12504580 filed by Anil Kumar Agarwal against real estate agent Aman Yadav (RERA Registration No. A011332400682, proprietary firm Homeland Reality).

The homebuyer had purchased a flat in Building No. 3, Wing C of the project “Aquila” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800032647) developed by S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. at Plot/S.No. 840 A1 Part, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban. The agreement for sale was registered on 17 April 2025.

According to the complainant, the agent had promised in writing via email dated 31 March 2025 — before the agreement was signed — that he would share 1% of the transaction cost with the buyer. The agent was allegedly receiving 2% to 2.5% commission from the promoter and had agreed to pass on 1% to the homebuyer. Despite repeated follow-ups on 10 to 20 occasions, the agent failed to pay the amount and eventually stopped responding to calls and messages.

The agent did not file any reply despite multiple opportunities given by MahaRERA. The Authority therefore decided the matter ex-parte.

MahaRERA examined the email and held that the agent’s conduct amounted to a misleading representation and unfair trade practice. The entire order rests on Section 10(c) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. This provision specifically prohibits a registered real estate agent from engaging in any unfair trade practice or making any false or misleading representation concerning the services offered by him.

The Authority observed that the agent made a clear written promise to share 1% of the transaction cost while facilitating the sale. After the deal was completed, he failed to honour the commitment. Such behaviour, MahaRERA ruled, violates the duty of registered agents to act fairly and transparently.

Directions issued:

• The complaint is allowed.
• The agent must pay the homebuyer an amount equal to 1% of the total sale consideration mentioned in the registered agreement for sale dated 17 April 2025.
• The amount will be calculated excluding GST, stamp duty, registration charges and other statutory charges.
• Payment must be made within 30 days from the date of the order.
• Failure to comply will attract further penal action under Section 65 of RERA.

This order sends a clear message that written commitments made by registered real estate agents before a transaction cannot be ignored after the deal is closed. Homebuyers who receive such assurances in writing now have a strong legal ground to approach MahaRERA for enforcement.

Also Read: MahaRERA Asks Builder to Submit Completion Milestones to Homebuyers While Granting Extension

The post MahaRERA Orders Real Estate Agent to Pay 1% Refund to Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

The recent MahaRERA order in Complaint No. CC12504580 (Anil Kumar Agarwal v. Aman Yadav) has set a concerning precedent for the real estate brokerage community. In this ruling, the Authority directed a registered real estate agent to pay a homebuyer 1% of the transaction value as a “kickback” or commission pass-through that had been promised via email before the sale was executed.

While the intent to protect homebuyers is understandable, the order raises fundamental questions about the correct interpretation of RERA and the limits of MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.

Misapplication of Section 10(c)

Section 10(c) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 prohibits registered real estate agents from engaging in unfair trade practices or making false or misleading representations concerning the services they offer. Typically, this provision addresses misleading claims about the quality, standards, approvals or features of a real estate project.

A private commercial arrangement between a buyer and an agent regarding the sharing of commission does not, in my view, amount to a “misleading representation of services” under the Act. Stretching Section 10(c) to enforce a voluntary commission-sharing promise converts a contractual understanding into a statutory violation. This interpretation expands the scope of the provision far beyond what the legislature appears to have intended.

Jurisdictional Overreach

Under Section 31 of RERA, MahaRERA’s jurisdiction is confined to violations of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations framed under it. Private monetary disputes — such as whether an agent should share a portion of the brokerage earned from the developer with the buyer — are essentially civil contractual matters governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

By entertaining and deciding such a claim, and by attaching the threat of penal action under Section 65, the Authority has stepped into the domain of a civil court. This raises a serious question of jurisdiction.

Impact on Registered Agents

RERA recognises real estate agents as a statutory stakeholder under Sections 9 and 10. The registration and certification framework was introduced to professionalise the sector and bring accountability. Forcing agents to return a portion of their hard-earned brokerage under the threat of regulatory penalty undermines the financial viability of genuine, tax-paying brokers and could discourage professionals from remaining in the formal system.

Concerns Over Ex-Parte Proceedings

Although notice was issued, the order was passed ex-parte. Enforcing a private monetary claim with the backing of statutory penalty provisions, without a full determination of whether MahaRERA even had jurisdiction over the dispute, raises issues of natural justice.

Way Forward

The real estate brokers’ associations should take this matter seriously. A formal representation should be submitted to the Housing Minister, the Principal Secretary (Housing), and the Chairman of MahaRERA seeking clarity on the scope of Section 10(c). Associations may also consider supporting an appeal before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 of RERA, primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The professionalisation of real estate brokerage was one of the stated objectives of RERA. Orders that convert voluntary commercial understandings into regulatory liabilities risk undermining that very objective.

About the Author Rajiv N. Jain of Ruchika Shelters, is a Real Estate Agent based out of South Mumbai

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the views of Square Feat India.

Also Read: MahaRERA Case Disposal Drops By 6%

The post MahaRERA’s 1% Agent Refund Order Raises Serious Questions of Jurisdiction and Fairness appeared first on Square Feat India.

Bawankule said that under the proposed change, a builder will only be able to collect 75 to 80 per cent of the total consideration for an apartment before the agreement for sale is executed. The remaining 20 to 25 per cent will be collected only at the time of final registration of the sale deed, effectively tying the last leg of payment to the completion of the transaction rather than allowing builders to front-load collections.

He made the announcement on X, where he framed the move as a direct response to a pattern of fraud in the state’s real estate sector. According to him, several builders have taken full payment from homebuyers without ultimately delivering the flats as promised, leaving buyers with completed payments but no home, or homes that fall short of what was agreed. By holding back a slice of the payment until registration, the government’s stated aim is to give buyers leverage at the most critical stage of the transaction, the point at which ownership actually transfers.

Bawankule’s original post can be viewed here: https://x.com/cbawankule/status/2088168731809820973?s=20

Bawankule said the government intends to amend the state’s Registration Act to formally implement this payment structure. Since registration law falls under the Revenue Department, which he heads, this gives the ministry a direct legislative route to enforce the change rather than relying solely on RERA-linked payment schedules, which currently govern most builder-buyer payment milestones in Maharashtra.

The practical effect of this proposal is significant for homebuyers. As it stands, builders can structure payment plans that require buyers to pay up to 100 per cent of the flat cost well before possession, sometimes years in advance of a project’s completion. If Bawankule’s proposed changes go through, a buyer would retain financial leverage right up to the point of final registration, since the builder would not receive the last 20 to 25 per cent of the money until that stage. This shifts some of the completion risk back onto the developer.

The announcement comes amid continuing scrutiny of builder conduct in Maharashtra, with MahaRERA and the MREAT frequently adjudicating disputes over possession delays, incomplete construction, and payment-related grievances filed by homebuyers and housing societies. A statutory change routed through the Registration Act would sit alongside RERA’s existing framework, adding another layer of protection tied specifically to the registration process.

No draft bill or amendment text has been released publicly yet, and the timeline for when this change would be tabled in the state legislature has not been specified.

Also Read: Now Individual Flat Owners’ Names To Be Entered In Property Card

The post Builders Can’t Collect Full Flat Payment Before Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling that reinforces the primacy of registered Agreement for Sale (AFS) terms, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has allowed promoter Raveshia Realtors to cancel seven agreements for office units in its project ‘The Metropole’ while dismissing the allottees’ claims for refund with interest.

The order was passed on 13 August 2026 by Chairperson Manoj Saunik in a batch of 14 cross-complaints involving office units numbered 9-02 to 9-08 in the project registered under MahaRERA number P51900026208. The allottees in the case are Mr. Milan Rajnikant Tanna and Mrs. Chaitali Milan Tanna.

Background of the Dispute

The seven registered Agreements for Sale were executed on 26 September 2022 for a total consideration of approximately ₹8.99 crore. As per the agreements, the promoter was to hand over possession by 30 March 2024. The project later received its Occupancy Certificate from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on 29 November 2024, and the promoter uploaded Form 4 confirming completion.

According to the promoter, the allottees failed to pay the balance consideration despite multiple demand notices issued between September 2022 and July 2023. Acting under the terms of the agreements, Raveshia Realtors issued a termination notice on 1 August 2023.

The allottees, on the other hand, approached MahaRERA seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal. They claimed the transactions formed part of a composite barter arrangement linked to work orders executed between their sister concern, M/s Natural Arts, and the promoter’s sister concern, M/s Crimson Chrome Construction LLP. They argued that amounts due under those work orders should have been adjusted against the sale consideration and sought refund of nearly ₹6.92 crore in each complaint along with interest at 18 per cent, stamp duty, registration charges, housing loan interest, and compensation under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Key Arguments and Subsequent Developments

The promoter maintained that the registered AFS contained no provision for barter, set-off or adjustment of amounts arising from separate contractual arrangements between different legal entities. It also alleged that the allottees had later created third-party rights by executing registered agreements for sale dated 24 September 2025 for five of the seven units (9-04 to 9-08) in favour of one Mr. Deepak Kumar Kanjibhai Patel. The promoter challenged a purported No Objection Certificate dated 29 December 2025 as forged and lodged a police complaint.

The Authority noted that the allottees’ positions had shifted during the proceedings. While the original complaints sought refund, later amendment applications sought execution of conveyance deeds, allotment of parking spaces, and a restraint on the promoter from creating third-party rights — even as the allottees themselves had already sold five units.

MahaRERA’s Findings

Chairperson Manoj Saunik held that the registered Agreements for Sale did not contain any clause permitting adjustment or set-off of amounts claimed under separate work orders. Email correspondence between the parties could not override the written contractual terms.

The Authority observed that Section 19(6) of the RERA Act places a clear duty on allottees to make payments in the manner and within the time specified in the agreement. Having failed to do so despite repeated demands, the allottees could not avoid the consequences of default by relying on claims arising from independent contracts between sister concerns.

The termination notice of 1 August 2023 was found to be in accordance with the agreements and Section 11(5) of the Act. The Authority further noted that the allottees’ challenge to the termination came only after the promoter had initiated cancellation proceedings, and that their subsequent conduct of selling five units while seeking restraint against third-party rights was inconsistent.

Amendment applications seeking to introduce new reliefs of conveyance and parking were rejected as they substantially altered the original refund-based complaints. Preliminary objections regarding pending arbitration between the sister concerns were also dismissed, as those proceedings did not arise from the Agreements for Sale of the office units.

Final Directions

MahaRERA allowed the seven complaints filed by the promoter and dismissed the corresponding seven complaints filed by the allottees.

The Authority directed the promoter to refund the amount payable strictly in accordance with the terms of the respective Agreements for Sale within 30 days. Importantly, the allottees were held not entitled to any interest on this amount. Upon receipt of the refund, the allottees must execute the deed of cancellation within 60 days. In case of failure, the promoter is free to approach MahaRERA for appropriate action for non-compliance.

The allottees were also directed to clear any loans or liens created on the units so that the properties are free from encumbrances. All other reliefs claimed by the promoter, including broader forfeiture and litigation costs, were rejected. No order as to costs was passed.

Implications

The ruling underscores that informal understandings or disputes involving sister concerns cannot dilute the binding payment obligations under a registered Agreement for Sale. It also highlights that inconsistent conduct by allottees — particularly creating third-party rights while pursuing refund claims — can weaken their case before the Authority.

For promoters, the order provides clarity that a validly issued termination notice based on documented payment defaults can be upheld, subject to refund of amounts as per the contract. For homebuyers and commercial allottees, it serves as a reminder that payment defaults carry consequences and that claims of barter or adjustment must be clearly reflected in the registered agreement itself.

Also Read: Homebuyer Claims Dispute Between Shapoorji and Nirmal Lifestyle Delaying Mulund Project, MahaRERA Asks Shapoorji to File Its Response

The post MahaRERA Upholds Builder’s Termination of 7 Office Units Over Payment Default appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Revenue and Forest Department’s Government Resolution dated August 14, 2026, requires joint measurement reports in land acquisition cases to record the area attributable to each co-holder separately.

At first glance, this may appear to be an administrative change in land measurement. But for ordinary landowners, heirs, co-owners and families holding land jointly, it could have a much bigger impact: greater clarity over whose land is actually being acquired and who should receive the corresponding compensation.

The problem the government is trying to solve

Land records often show several co-holders under a single Survey Number or Gat Number. Over time, ownership can change because of inheritance, partition, sale, transfer or other transactions.

Although such land may legally have different shares, the physical subdivision of those shares may not always have been completed before a government project requires land acquisition.

As a result, during joint measurement, the entire Survey or Gat Number could be measured without separately identifying the portion physically occupied or held by each co-holder.

This becomes particularly problematic when only part of the larger parcel is being acquired.

For example, suppose a 10-acre Gat Number has five co-holders. If a government project requires only three acres, a conventional joint measurement could identify three acres as the acquired area without clearly establishing which co-holder’s portion is affected.

The acquisition authority could then name all the co-holders in the final award, while disputes could continue over how the compensation should actually be divided.

That is where the new SOP attempts to intervene.

What the new SOP changes

The government has directed that joint measurement reports should include the area attributable to individual co-holders.

The process requires notices to all co-holders and gives them an opportunity to remain present during the physical measurement.

Officials are expected to consider available revenue records, registered documents relating to subdivision or ownership, inheritance records, partition documents, gift deeds, registered sale deeds, consent of landholders and the actual position on the ground.

A share-wise preliminary map is then to be prepared.

The map must identify:

• The individual share of each co-holder
• The boundaries and directions of each share
• The area attributable to each share
• The portion of each share proposed to be acquired

This is an important shift from simply measuring the total acquired land to establishing how the acquired area relates to individual co-holders.

A major benefit for ordinary landowners

The biggest benefit for common people is clarity.

For a landowner whose property is being acquired for a road, railway, irrigation project, industrial project, public infrastructure or another public purpose, compensation is not merely an accounting figure.

It may represent the value of ancestral land, agricultural income, a family asset or the principal property owned by a household.

When multiple people have rights in the same land, uncertainty over the exact area belonging to each person can delay compensation.

The new procedure seeks to establish that information earlier in the acquisition process.

Instead of waiting until the compensation award to discover that co-holders disagree about their respective portions, the measurement exercise itself can bring those differences to the surface.

Public disclosure gives co-holders a chance to object

The preliminary share-wise maps and statements are required to be published at the village chavdi for at least 15 days.

Where necessary, publication can also be made through local newspapers.

This gives affected people an opportunity to examine the proposed division and raise objections.

This is particularly important for people who may not regularly visit revenue offices or may not have a detailed understanding of land records.

A publicly displayed map can make an otherwise complicated revenue record easier to understand.

If a co-holder believes that the proposed area or boundary is incorrect, the person gets an opportunity to challenge it before the measurement becomes final.

Disputes can be addressed earlier

The SOP provides a mechanism for dealing with objections.

If objections are received, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records is required to conduct a hearing under the applicable provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Survey and Sub-Division of Survey Numbers Rules.

The government has also prescribed that such cases should be disposed of within one month of the joint measurement.

This time-bound approach is significant.

Land acquisition disputes can otherwise remain unresolved for extended periods, particularly when the disagreement concerns the identity or share of the person entitled to compensation.

Resolving the measurement-related issue at an early stage could reduce the number of disputes that ultimately reach higher authorities or courts.

The SOP could make compensation distribution faster

One of the government’s stated objectives is to make compensation distribution easier and faster.

Once the acquired area has been identified share-wise, the Special Land Acquisition Officer or competent authority can use the information while determining and distributing compensation.

This could reduce situations in which compensation is determined for an entire parcel but the authorities subsequently face difficulty deciding how much should go to each co-holder.

In cases where there is no objection within the prescribed period, the published share-wise draft can be treated as final, followed by the necessary orders and record corrections.

That could remove one layer of uncertainty from the compensation process.

It may be particularly useful for inherited family land

The new system could be especially relevant to families holding inherited agricultural land.

A single ancestral property may have several legal heirs, sometimes across multiple generations.

While the revenue record may identify several names, the physical occupation of the property may have evolved differently over the years.

When only part of such property is acquired, determining the actual share affected can become complicated.

The share-wise measurement requirement creates a formal opportunity to document the position before the acquisition process reaches its compensation-distribution stage.

This could be valuable in cases where family members live in different villages, districts or even states.

It can reduce the risk of compensation disputes

The government specifically identifies disputes over compensation distribution as one of the problems that the SOP is intended to address.

Without a clear share-wise measurement, multiple co-holders may claim the same compensation.

The result can be delayed payment, references to the competent authority and potentially prolonged litigation.

By identifying the acquired area at the co-holder level earlier in the process, the administration can potentially reduce the scope for such disputes.

However, the SOP does not mean that every ownership dispute will automatically disappear.

Where ownership itself is disputed before a court or otherwise legally contested, the parties may still have to approach the competent judicial forum.

Important protection for buyers after acquisition notification

Another significant provision concerns transactions after publication of the preliminary acquisition notification.

The SOP states that purchases, sales or transfers made after the preliminary notification should not be considered for the purpose of sub-division measurement.

This is important because otherwise subsequent transactions could complicate the land records and create additional claims during the acquisition process.

The provision therefore seeks to establish a clear cut-off point for considering transactions for the purpose of the share-wise measurement.

What it means for government infrastructure projects

The benefits are not limited to individual landowners.

For the government, faster resolution of land-related issues can mean faster possession of land required for public projects.

Roads, railways, metro systems, irrigation projects, transmission infrastructure and other public projects can be delayed when compensation disputes prevent possession.

A clearer joint measurement process could therefore improve administrative efficiency.

If disputes regarding individual shares are identified and addressed at the measurement stage, the acquisition authority may be in a better position to proceed with compensation and possession.

In the long run, that could contribute to fewer project delays caused by unresolved land-record issues.

A potential long-term benefit: better land records

There is another benefit that may not be immediately visible.

The SOP requires share-wise maps and appropriate documentation, including preparation of Share Form No. 11 and Share Form No. 12 where necessary.

This could contribute to better subdivision records.

Better records can have consequences beyond the immediate acquisition.

Clearer subdivision information can make future transactions, inheritance, partition, mortgage and other land-related processes easier to administer.

In that sense, the new SOP could gradually improve the quality of Maharashtra’s land records in areas where such measurements are undertaken.

Greater transparency between citizens and the administration

Land acquisition is inherently sensitive because the government is acquiring privately held property for a public purpose.

Transparency in determining what land is being acquired and whose share is affected is therefore crucial.

The new process introduces several transparency mechanisms: notice to co-holders, physical measurement, preparation of share-wise maps, public display, an objection period and hearings where objections arise.

These steps can give affected landowners a clearer understanding of what is happening to their property.

What common people should do

The SOP does not mean landowners should simply wait for the administration to complete the process.

Co-holders should carefully examine the preliminary share-wise map and statement when they are published.

They should also keep relevant documents ready, including registered sale deeds, partition documents, inheritance records and other documents supporting their claim.

If the proposed measurement does not correctly reflect their share or physical possession, they should use the prescribed objection mechanism within the stipulated period.

The most important point is that the preliminary measurement should not be treated as a formality.

For a landowner, it could directly influence how the acquired land and eventually the compensation are attributed.

The bigger picture

Maharashtra’s August 14, 2026 SOP is essentially an attempt to move one important part of the land acquisition process from ambiguity to documentation.

Instead of identifying only the total area being acquired, the administration will now have a framework for identifying the portion attributable to individual co-holders.

For ordinary citizens, the immediate benefit is greater clarity.

The medium-term benefit could be fewer compensation-distribution disputes and faster payment.

The long-term benefit could be more accurate subdivision records, fewer administrative disputes and faster implementation of public infrastructure projects.

The SOP cannot, by itself, resolve genuine ownership disputes. Nor does it eliminate the need for courts where title itself is contested.

But by identifying share-wise acquired land at the joint measurement stage, Maharashtra is addressing one of the practical problems that can turn land acquisition into a prolonged dispute.

For thousands of landowners affected by public projects, that administrative change could ultimately translate into something much more tangible: greater certainty about how much of their land is being acquired and whose compensation is actually due.

Also Read: HC sets aside order granting extra land to a bifurcated flat owners’ society, says bifurcation itself is final conveyance.

The post Maharashtra’s New Land Acquisition SOP Could Make Compensation Fairer for Landowners appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order was passed on August 10, 2026 by Member Ravindra Deshpande in Review Application No. CC006000000221101/APPL/RV/2 arising out of Complaint No. CC006000000221101.

Background of the Case

Mr Vaibhav Kishor Ambukar and Mrs Seema Vaibhav Ambukar had booked Flat No. 1503 in Tower-1, Wing-B of the “Lodha Mulund Project Tower I” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800031360) for a total consideration of Rs 2,26,93,597. They paid Rs 1,00,000 on September 26, 2021 and Rs 6,00,000 on October 10, 2021 towards booking. Out of the first instalment, Rs 35,000 was towards GST. Thus, the developer received Rs 6,65,000.

According to the buyers, after returning to India they executed the Application Form. Their housing loan was later rejected due to uncertainty in Mr Ambukar’s contractual employment abroad. By email dated November 27, 2021, they sought cancellation of the booking and refund of the amount paid.

Lodha refused the refund, relying on Clause 3.5 of the Application Form which provided for forfeiture of the booking amount in case of cancellation. The buyers then approached MahaRERA in May 2022 seeking refund with interest.

On June 10, 2025, MahaRERA allowed the complaint and directed the developer to refund the amounts paid by the complainants.

Lodha’s Arguments in Review

Aggrieved by the refund order, Macrotech Developers filed the present review application. The company contended that:

• The Application Form was actually executed on November 7, 2021 and not on November 18, 2021 as recorded in the original order. The later date was merely an internal CRM entry.
• The buyers had voluntarily cancelled the booking due to their personal financial constraints and loan rejection. There was no default on the part of the developer.
• Despite offering a flexible payment schedule and an option to downgrade the unit, the buyers insisted on cancellation.
• Clause 3.5 of the Application Form clearly provided for forfeiture. The developer had suffered financial loss on account of administrative expenses, marketing costs, brokerage and opportunity loss, as the flat remained unsold until July 2023.
• The original order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record. It neither recorded any violation of the RERA Act warranting refund nor assigned reasons for disregarding the contractual forfeiture clause. It also wrongly applied MahaRERA Order No. 35 of 2022 retrospectively and ignored binding precedents.

Lodha sought quashing of the June 10, 2025 order, stay of its operation, and other consequential reliefs.

Homebuyers’ Stand

The original complainants strongly opposed the review. They submitted that:

• The review application was filed only to evade compliance with the refund order and to delay its execution after non-compliance proceedings had commenced.
• The application was barred by limitation under Regulation 36 of the MahaRERA (General) Regulations. It was filed much beyond the prescribed 45-day period without any application for condonation of delay.
• Review jurisdiction is extremely limited. It can be exercised only in cases of error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence. Lodha had neither pointed out any such error nor produced any new material. It was merely re-agitating the same submissions already considered and rejected.
• The Authority had already held that the Application Form was executed after receipt of the booking amount, was not properly explained to the buyers, contained one-sided and unconscionable clauses, and that several pages lacked signatures. No Agreement for Sale was ever executed.
• The cancellation was sought within nine days of signing the form due to genuine financial hardship arising from loan rejection. The amount paid constituted only about 2.93% of the total consideration. Lodha had failed to produce any documentary evidence of actual financial loss.
• The review was a disguised appeal and an abuse of process.

MahaRERA’s Findings and Order

After hearing both sides on April 21, 2026, Member Ravindra Deshpande reserved the matter and delivered the order on August 10, 2026.

The Authority first examined the limitation issue. The original order was passed on June 10, 2025. Although the developer claimed to have paid the challan, the hard copy of the review application was received by MahaRERA only on August 26, 2025 and the online filing was done on February 5, 2026. No application seeking condonation of delay was filed, nor was any sufficient cause shown. The Authority held that mere payment of challan cannot be treated as filing within the prescribed period. The review application was therefore barred by limitation and liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

Even on merits, the Authority found no error apparent on the face of the record. It noted that the Application Form itself contained two conflicting handwritten dates (07.11.2021 and 18.11.2021). The receipts annexed with the form, however, bore the dates 18.11.2021 and 19.11.2021. Extending the benefit of doubt, the Authority upheld the original finding that the form was executed on 18.11.2021.

The Authority further observed that all the grounds raised by Lodha — including the validity of Clause 3.5, alleged financial loss, judicial precedents and applicability of Order No. 35 of 2022 — had already been specifically raised and duly considered in the detailed order dated June 10, 2025. In that order, MahaRERA had held the forfeiture clause to be one-sided, unconscionable and unenforceable, noted the prompt cancellation due to genuine hardship, and recorded the absence of any proof of actual loss suffered by the developer.

Reiterating the settled legal position, the Authority held that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction. A party cannot seek re-appreciation of the same evidence or reconsideration of findings already recorded under the guise of review.

Final Order

1. The Review Application No. CC006000000221101/APPL/RV/2 stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.

The original refund direction dated June 10, 2025 therefore continues to hold the field.

This decision once again underlines MahaRERA’s consistent approach that one-sided forfeiture clauses in booking application forms, especially when the amount paid is a small percentage of the total consideration and cancellation is sought promptly for genuine reasons, will not be enforced to the detriment of homebuyers.

Also Read: Lodha Brothers Resolve Disputes, Clarify Brand Ownership

The post Builder’s Review Dismissed: MahaRERA Upholds Refund to Mulund Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order was passed on 6 August 2026 by Member Shri Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC005000000259298 filed by Prasad Ramkrushna Deshpande against M/s. Sunraj Developers (through its proprietor Mr. Jayesh Nivrutti Salunkhe). The project in question is “RAJ SAPHIRE” registered under MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52700008000.

The complainant had agreed to purchase Flat No. 202, B Wing, 2nd Floor, admeasuring approximately 606.64 sq. ft. carpet area (including balcony, enclosed balcony and terrace) for a total consideration of ₹25,60,000. The parties executed a registered Agreement for Sale on 14 March 2019. As per the agreement, possession was to be handed over on or before 31 December 2020.

The homebuyer claimed he had paid a total of ₹26,52,500 towards the flat — ₹92,500 more than the agreed consideration. Of this amount, ₹50,000 was paid in cash and the rest through RTGS, cheques and a home loan of ₹17.50 lakh taken from HDFC Bank. He had also paid stamp duty of ₹1,53,600, registration charges of ₹25,600 and claimed legal fees of ₹1,00,000.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the builder sought additional time. The complainant granted a six-month extension, making the revised possession deadline 30 June 2021. Despite this, the builder failed to hand over possession. The complainant issued legal notices in March and June 2023 seeking either completion of the project or cancellation of the agreement with full refund. The builder neither replied nor delivered possession.

The complaint was filed on 18 August 2023 seeking refund of the entire ₹26,52,500 along with interest at SBI highest MCLR plus 2%, stamp duty, registration charges, legal fees, compensation of ₹2 lakh for mental and financial harassment, and monthly rent of ₹7,000 from the original possession date.

The matter was heard on 14 January 2026. The complainant was represented by a Company Secretary, while the respondent remained absent despite service of notice. The complaint was therefore proceeded ex-parte. Earlier applications for amendment and stay had already been rejected.

In its detailed order, MahaRERA observed that the complaint remained unchallenged. The Authority noted that the agreed possession date was 31 December 2020 and that even after the six-month extension granted by the buyer, possession was not delivered by 30 June 2021. Consequently, the homebuyer was entitled to withdraw from the project under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

However, on the quantum of refund, the Authority took a strict view. It held that Section 18 permits refund only of the amount received by the promoter “in respect of that apartment” as per the terms of the Agreement for Sale. The agreed consideration in the registered agreement was ₹25,60,000. Therefore, only this amount could be ordered to be refunded along with interest from the respective dates of payment at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017.

The Authority explicitly refused to grant refund of the excess amount of ₹92,500 paid by the complainant. It also declined to order refund of stamp duty, registration charges and other statutory payments, stating that Section 18 does not empower the Authority to direct return of amounts other than the consideration for the flat. The complainant was advised to approach the appropriate authorities for refund of stamp duty and registration charges, if so desired.

The final operative directions are as follows:

1. The complainant is allowed to withdraw from the project.
2. The respondent is directed to refund ₹25,60,000 with interest from the respective dates of payment at the prescribed rate within 30 days of the order.
3. Upon receipt of the refund, the complainant shall cancel the Agreement for Sale; the charges for cancellation shall be borne by the respondent.
4. The respondent is directed to take steps to remove the project from abeyance.
5. The respondent shall pay ₹20,000 to the complainant towards costs of the complaint.
6. The Authority clarified that the amount under Section 18 means only the consideration paid towards the flat, excluding stamp duty, registration charges, taxes and other similar payments made to the government.

This order underscores an important practical reality for homebuyers. While RERA provides strong protection for delayed possession and the right to exit with refund of the contractual consideration plus interest, any payment made beyond the figure mentioned in the registered Agreement for Sale does not automatically enjoy the same statutory protection under Section 18. Buyers who pay extra amounts — whether under pressure, verbal assurances or otherwise — may find it difficult to recover that excess through MahaRERA and may have to pursue separate civil remedies for recovery of money paid under mistake or unjust enrichment.

The decision also reiterates the consistent position of MahaRERA that stamp duty, registration charges and taxes paid to government authorities are not recoverable from the promoter under Section 18.

For homebuyers, the takeaway is clear: insist that every rupee paid is reflected in the registered Agreement for Sale and obtain proper receipts. Any amount paid outside the contractual consideration carries the risk of remaining unprotected under RERA’s refund provisions.

Also Read: Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project

The post Paid Extra to Builder Beyond Agreement? MahaRERA Says No Refund for Excess Amount appeared first on Square Feat India.