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.

The judgment, pronounced on 8 May 2026 by a bench of Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde (J) and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande, is a textbook case of a promoter attempting to weaponize a homebuyer’s delayed payments — payments the promoter was legally barred from even demanding in the first place.

The core finding

A promoter who collects over 90% of the sale price without executing a registered Agreement for Sale — violating both MOFA and RERA — cannot then cancel the allotment on the grounds of “non-payment.” The wrongdoer cannot profit from their own wrong.

The Homebuyer’s Story

Pramod Yagnarayan Singh booked flat No. A-2, 302 in Hatkesh Heights — a 408.40 sq. ft. carpet area apartment on the 3rd floor — in December 2014. The total sale price was ₹35,05,000. Over the next four years, Singh faithfully responded to every demand letter sent by the promoter, paying a total of ₹28,63,375 — more than 81% of the agreed price — along with service tax, bringing his total outgo to approximately ₹29 lakh.

Through all these years, the promoter sent over 20 demand letters asking for payments. What the promoter did not do — not once — was share a draft Agreement for Sale, communicate a date for its execution, or inform the buyer of applicable stamp duty and registration charges. Under both the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), a promoter is legally prohibited from accepting more than 10–20% of the consideration price without first executing and registering an Agreement for Sale.

Then, on 12 February 2019, came the letter that shocked Singh: the promoter cancelled his flat, citing “outstanding dues” and inviting him to collect a refund after deducting “interest till date.”

Singh’s advocate responded swiftly on 11 March 2019, reminding the builder of its statutory obligations, enclosing cheques for the entire outstanding balance — ₹6,06,575 towards consideration and ₹1,44,789 towards GST. The promoter never replied. The cheques were never deposited.

“A wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.”
— Supreme Court, cited in the order

A Decade-Long Legal Battle

• 2014Allotment letter issued; Singh begins paying instalments against builder’s demand notices.
• 2015–18Over 20 demand letters sent by builder. No draft Agreement for Sale ever shared. Builder keeps collecting money.
• Feb 2019Builder cancels the allotment for “non-payment.” Singh sends balance cheques by letter — ignored by builder.
• Jul 2019Singh files complaint before MahaRERA. Occupation Certificate for the project is issued in May 2019.
• Nov 2019MahaRERA directs builder to execute Agreement for Sale. Builder appeals to MREAT.
• Dec 2021MREAT remands the matter back, noting the cancellation letter was never addressed.
• Jun 2022MahaRERA sets aside cancellation, again directs Agreement for Sale execution. Builder files this appeal.
• May 2026MREAT dismisses builder’s appeal; delivers sweeping relief to Singh including possession and interest.

What the Tribunal Found

The Tribunal was categorical: the promoter violated Section 4 of MOFA and Section 13 of RERA by accepting over 90% of the consideration amount without executing a registered Agreement for Sale. These are not technical violations — they are the foundational consumer protections at the heart of real estate law.

The promoter’s argument that it sent 20 letters asking Singh to come and register the agreement was dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the letters were merely demand notices for more money, with a one-liner stating the agreement was “ready for stamp duty.” No draft agreement was ever shared. No registration date was ever communicated. No stamp duty amount was ever specified. On direct query from the bench, the promoter’s advocate confirmed that no such communication existed.

The Tribunal also invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Amit Arya v. Kamleh Kumari (2025) to hold that Singh’s conduct — sending the balance cheques, writing formally to the builder, demanding possession — demonstrated clear readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Non-payment of balance consideration within a time period does not amount to abandonment of contract; the real test is whether there was a “positive refusal” to perform. There was none from Singh.

Crucially, the Tribunal applied the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrongdoing — citing the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar. The promoter who was legally barred from demanding further payments without first executing the Agreement for Sale cannot then cancel the allotment on the very ground of non-payment of those illegal demands.

Going Beyond — The Tribunal Steps In

In a noteworthy exercise of its appellate powers, the Tribunal observed that the original MahaRERA order had failed to address two key prayers by Singh: direction for possession and interest for delayed possession. Rather than remanding the case yet again — forcing the parties into another round of litigation after more than a decade — the Tribunal decided to adjudicate these issues itself, invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its own inherent powers under MREAT Regulations 2019.

The Tribunal calculated the deemed date of possession as 31 December 2017 — three years from the allotment letter, following the Supreme Court’s formula in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018) for cases where no possession date is specified. The occupation certificate was obtained by the promoter only in May 2019 — already over a year late. And Singh has been out of possession for over seven years since.

The Final Order: Builder Punished on Every Count

Tribunal’s directions — Appeal No. AT006000000113946 of 2022

1 Execute and register the Agreement for Sale in terms of the allotment letter (with deemed possession date of 31.12.2017) within 30 days.

2 Hand over possession of the flat within 30 days of receiving the balance consideration of ₹6,41,625 with applicable taxes — without charging any interest on delayed payment from the buyer.

3 Execute the Sale Deed within 30 days of balance payment, at the cost of the promoter.

4 Pay interest on ₹28,63,375 (amount already paid by Singh) from 1 January 2018 until the date of actual possession — under Section 18 of RERA.

5 Pay litigation costs of ₹2,00,000 to the allottee.

Why This Ruling Matters

This judgment is significant for several reasons. First, it reaffirms that the RERA Act is retroactive — protecting homebuyers even in projects that began before RERA came into force in 2016, as long as they were ongoing and lacked a completion certificate. Second, it establishes that a builder who systematically collects money without fulfilling the mandatory Agreement for Sale obligation is in no position to invoke equity or claim non-payment by the buyer. Third, the Tribunal’s willingness to adjudicate possession and interest at the appellate stage — rather than remanding — offers a model for resolving long-pending disputes without further delay.

For tens of thousands of homebuyers across Maharashtra who find themselves in similar situations — paying crores to builders who evade formal agreements and then attempt cancellations — this order sends a clear message: the law is on your side.

Also Read: Builder Sold Flat… Then Mortgaged It! MahaRERA Tribunal; Says Builder Must Clear Mortgage, Give Possession & Pay Interest

The post Builder Pockets 90% of Your Money,Then Cancels Your Flat — Tribunal Says: Not on Our Watch 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 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.

Delivered by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, the ruling dissects a Bengaluru project gone wrong, offering crystal-clear guidelines for JDA-based developments. It’s a wake-up call for homebuyers: Scrutinize your builder’s track record before signing on the dotted line.

The Project and Initial Dispute

The case revolves around “Unishire Terraza,” a residential apartment project in Thanisandra Village, Bengaluru. In February 2012, individual landowners—original owners of about 2 acres of land—signed a JDA with developer M/s Unishire Homes LLP. Under the deal, the developer got 64% of the built-up area and proportionate land rights, plus full authority via a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to handle construction, sales, and registrations for their share.

Starting in July 2013, the developer sold flats to homebuyers with promises of possession within 36 months, plus a 6-month grace period (due by February 2017). But the project stalled, with no handover even after six years. Frustrated buyers filed a consumer complaint in August 2017 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In its main order on October 19, 2023, the NCDRC pinned the blame squarely on the developer. It ordered completion of construction, obtaining an occupancy certificate, and possession handover within three months. The developer was also directed to pay 6% per annum interest on buyers’ deposits from the due date until possession offer, escalating to 9% if delayed further. Crucially, landowners were cleared of liability, as construction duties rested solely with the developer.

The Review Petition Saga: Twists and Turns

Unhappy with the order sparing the landowners, homebuyers filed a review petition in the NCDRC. They demanded that landowners be held jointly and severally liable for delays and construction completion, plus higher compensation at Rs. 5 per square foot per month (as per the sale agreements) with 6% interest.

In a surprise move, the NCDRC partly allowed the review on December 15, 2023, via an order passed in chambers (without open hearings). It flipped its stance, holding landowners jointly liable with the developer for finishing the project and paying delay compensation—but rejected the enhanced rate.

This chamber order sparked outrage from the landowners, who challenged it in the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 9470/2024). On May 3, 2024, the apex court set aside the December order, ruling it invalid because landowners weren’t given a chance to argue their case—a basic breach of natural justice. The matter was sent back (remanded) to the NCDRC with strict instructions to rehear all parties and decide within six weeks.

After the rehearing, the NCDRC issued its final review order on July 30, 2024. Simplifying matters, it reversed the joint liability finding: Based on the JDA’s indemnity clauses (protecting landowners from developer faults) and GPA terms (giving the developer exclusive control over construction and sales), landowners could not be held responsible for delays. The developer alone remained liable for completion and compensation. However, to safeguard buyers’ rights, both landowners and the developer were ordered to jointly transfer clear title and execute sale deeds.

Supreme Court’s Final Hammer: No Joint Liability for Landowners

Homebuyers appealed the NCDRC’s July 2024 and original October 2023 orders to the Supreme Court, arguing a principal-agent relationship via the GPA made landowners vicariously liable. They cited clauses in sale agreements and past judgments to push for shared blame.

The Supreme Court dismissed these appeals outright. Analyzing JDA Clause 7 (mutual indemnities, with the developer shielding landowners from sub-sale issues) and GPA Clauses 2-3 (authorizing the developer to sell, receive payments, and convey titles for their share), the bench ruled that construction delays were the developer’s sole fault. No evidence linked delays to landowners’ actions, and no true principal-agent tie existed for construction lapses.

The Court stressed: Landowners are only jointly obligated for title transfer, not monetary penalties or build timelines. Cited precedents were deemed irrelevant or supportive of developer-only liability, as each case turns on its facts.

Massive Relief for Landowners and Housing Societies

This verdict is a lifeline for landowners in JDA partnerships, common in urban India where land-rich owners team up with cash-strapped developers. It shields them from being unfairly roped into consumer complaints for builder delays, as long as contracts clearly assign construction to developers with indemnity protections.

The ruling also extends comfort to co-operative housing societies, especially in redevelopment projects under laws like Maharashtra’s MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act). Societies often act like “landowners” in such deals, and this judgment clarifies they won’t face promoter-level liabilities for developer screw-ups—focusing regulation on builders instead.

Adv Vivekanand Gupta, an expert in real estate law, hailed the decision: “It’s a landmark judgement. A great relief to housing society and its Members. The Hon SC has rightly held that society cannot be held liable for delays caused due to the builders faults and it’s for the purchasers to sue the developer and not the society. The purpose of MOFA is to regulate promoters and developers, not to impose promoter-level obligations on cooperative housing societies redeveloping their own property. This judgement has settled the law bringing great relief to housing societies.”

Backed by thorough analysis of contracts and precedents, the judgment urges stronger oversight under RERA (Real Estate Regulation Act) to hold developers accountable, potentially reducing litigation and boosting trust in the sector.

The post Supreme Court Shocker: Landowners Off the Hook for Builder Delays – Homebuyers Must Chase Developers Alone in JDA Deals! appeared first on Square Feat India.

The division bench of Justice Amit Borkar allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a deemed membership conferred on a flat buyer in an SRA redevelopment project, and restored the buyer’s membership rights, underlining that possession and statutory rights under MOFA take precedence over payment disputes.

Background of the Dispute

The case, Writ Petition No. 13583 of 2025, involved a flat purchaser, Digant Parekh, who executed a registered Agreement for Sale dated 16 September 2013 with developers Akruti Kailash Construction and Wellgroomed Venture for a flat in Hubtown Viva, Jogeshwari (East). The agreement was registered in the prescribed Form No. 5 under MOFA, which provides enhanced protections to flat buyers.

Despite the existence of this agreement, and after the purchaser applied for membership in the cooperative housing society formed for the project, the society did not grant membership. The purchaser then sought deemed membership under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and the Assistant Registrar granted it on 18 August 2022.

However, the developers challenged this decision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, who in an order dated 25 November 2024 set aside the deemed membership, primarily on the ground that a civil suit (Suit No. 2225 of 2016) filed by the developers to enforce the Agreement for Sale was still pending in the City Civil Court, and that payment was allegedly incomplete.

High Court Trial of Key Legal Issues

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, raising several critical issues:

• Whether a registered MOFA buyer has “taken” the flat for society membership purposes even if full payment remains due.
• Whether a pending civil suit on validity and enforcement of the agreement bars membership.
• Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to set aside the deemed membership order in light of a government notification reforming appellate powers.

Court’s Historic Ruling

After reviewing the law and statutory purpose of MOFA, the High Court made several important findings:

1. Validity and Effect of the MOFA Agreement

The court observed that a registered MOFA agreement in Form No. 5 confers a special legal position on a buyer. The statute treats a purchaser under such an agreement as someone who has “taken” the flat, since registration itself contains detailed mandatory disclosures about the project, title, possession, price, and responsibilities of the promoter.

Accordingly, the court found that such purchasers are entitled to exercise rights available to flat buyers — including society membership — even if some payment remains outstanding. This is because:

• MOFA protects purchasers from unfair practices of builders.
• A purchaser’s legal status does not depend on full payment alone.
• Any unpaid amount places the developer in the position of an “unpaid seller”, whose remedies are limited to recovery, not denial of membership.

“When a purchaser signs a registered agreement under Section 4 of MOFA, the law gives enforceable rights, including membership rights in the co-operative society,” the judgment stated.

2. Pending Civil Suit Does Not Bar Membership

The court rejected the argument that the mere pendency of a civil suit to enforce the agreement should prevent the conferral of membership. It held that a civil dispute on title or payment does not automatically block administrative steps such as granting membership, unless a civil court issues a specific injunction.

3. Jurisdictional Error

The court also found that a State Government Notification dated 8 October 2024 had transferred appellate powers for grievances related to SRA housing societies to a newly constituted authority. As such, the Divisional Joint Registrar who set aside the membership order in November 2024 did not have jurisdiction to do so.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that:

• The revisional order dated 25 November 2024 cancelling membership was quashed.
• The original deemed membership order dated 18 August 2022 was restored.
• The civil suit filed by the developers will continue independently and will not affect the society membership of the buyer.
• An application for stay of the judgment was rejected.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment sends a strong message to the real estate sector, especially in redevelopment contexts:

• Society membership cannot be withheld solely on the basis of unpaid dues claimed by builders.
• Flat buyers under valid MOFA agreements have enforceable statutory rights that extend to society membership.
• Developers cannot use payment disputes to delay or block flat purchasers’ participation in the governance and management of their societies.

Legal experts say this interpretation reinforces MOFA’s protective purpose and ensures that housing society membership rights are not made hostage to payment disputes.

Also Read: Tribunal Rules Housing Society Not a Promoter Under RERA

The post Full Payment to Builder Is NOT a Pre-Condition for Society Membership appeared first on Square Feat India.

A recent Bombay High Court judgment in Velantine Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 35377 of 2025, pronounced on December 23, 2025) serves as a compelling case study. This ruling highlights the delicate balance between protecting developers’ contractual rights and ensuring timely conveyance of property to housing societies. Let’s delve into what residual rights entail, using this case to illustrate their real-world implications for homebuyers.

Understanding Developer’s Residual Rights

In large-scale real estate projects, developers often acquire land and secure approvals for layouts that span multiple buildings or phases. Residual rights typically include:

• Unused FSI and TDR: FSI determines how much built-up area can be constructed on a plot. TDR allows developers to transfer development potential from one site to another. If not fully utilized in initial phases, developers can retain these for future expansions.
• Retained Land Portions: Agreements with buyers may explicitly reserve small parcels (e.g., for amenities or additional structures) to the developer, preventing immediate full conveyance.
• Phased Development Clauses: Contracts under MOFA often stipulate that conveyance (transfer of title) occurs only after the entire project is complete, allowing developers flexibility in evolving plans.

These rights are rooted in agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA, which mandates that conveyances align with buyer-developer contracts. However, they must comply with statutory timelines and government resolutions, such as the Maharashtra Government’s Resolution dated June 22, 2018, which guides deemed conveyances in multi-building layouts.

While residual rights enable efficient urban development and prevent underutilization of land, they can frustrate homebuyers who seek clear title to their properties sooner. Delays in conveyance can affect resale value, access to loans, or even basic society management.

Case Study: The Velantine Properties Dispute

The Velantine Properties case revolves around a 27,116.30 sq. mtr. plot in Mumbai, subdivided into plots A through G for multi-storied buildings. Sub-Plot A (6,536.30 sq. mtrs.) housed buildings for three co-operative societies, including Respondent No. 3 (comprising Wings A, B, C, and F of Building A-2).

• The Developer’s Stance: Velantine Properties, the promoter, argued that agreements with flat buyers (e.g., a sample dated July 31, 1999) reserved rights to develop residual areas using TDR. Specifically, they claimed entitlement to retain 146 sq. mtrs. for future construction. They offered a draft joint conveyance in February 2025, covering 43.21% of the land for Respondent No. 3, but insisted on limiting it to plinth and appurtenant areas as per the 2018 Government Resolution (Clause B(2)), given TDR usage.
• The Society’s Application: Registered in 2004, Respondent No. 3 demanded conveyance in 2025, citing developer delays. They filed for unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA, seeking 3,215.19 sq. mtrs. (49.19% based on built-up area, including 5% amenity space). The District Deputy Registrar granted this on October 16, 2025, rejecting the retention claim for lack of evidence.
• High Court’s Intervention: Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla quashed the order, remanding it for fresh consideration. Key reasons:
  • Contractual recitals supported the developer’s retention of 146 sq. mtrs. for phased development.
  • The 2018 Resolution mandates conveyance based on plinth/appurtenant areas in TDR-utilized layouts (Clause B(2)).
  • In multi-society setups where only one applies (as here), an independent architect from the authority’s panel must measure the land (Clause B(3)) to resolve disputes fairly.
  • Clauses postponing conveyance until “full development” are invalid, overriding developer arguments of prematurity (citing Lok Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025).

The court emphasized that deemed conveyance must align with MOFA agreements and cannot exceed what the developer agreed to convey. It stayed its order for six weeks, preventing immediate registration.

This ruling underscores that while developers cannot indefinitely delay conveyance (statutory four-month timeline under MOFA Rule 9 applies), their residual rights— if clearly reserved—must be verified independently to avoid prejudice.

How Residual Rights Impact Homebuyers

For homebuyers, residual rights can be a double-edged sword:

• Positive Aspects: They enable larger, phased projects with better amenities, potentially increasing property value over time. In the Velantine case, retained land could lead to additional facilities benefiting all societies.
• Challenges and Risks:
  • Delays in Ownership Transfer: Buyers may wait years for full title, as seen here where conveyance was demanded two decades after society registration. This can hinder society autonomy, like managing common areas or securing redevelopment.
  • Disputes Over Area: Without independent verification, societies might receive less than entitled, or developers could over-retain, leading to litigation. The court’s remand highlights how discrepancies (built-up vs. plinth area) fuel conflicts.
  • Financial Implications: Uncertain title affects mortgage approvals, resale, or insurance. In Mumbai’s competitive market, such delays can erode buyer confidence.
  • Legal Recourse: MOFA empowers buyers via deemed conveyance, but as this case shows, courts will protect developer rights if substantiated, potentially prolonging resolutions.

Homebuyers should scrutinize agreements for residual clauses, insist on clear timelines, and form societies early to invoke MOFA protections.

Broader Implications for Real Estate

This judgment reinforces MOFA’s buyer-centric ethos while safeguarding developers’ investments in phased projects. It aligns with precedents like M/s. S & M Enterprises vs. The Palazzo Building No. 1 CHSL (2022), limiting conveyance to proportionate shares in incomplete layouts, and M/s. ACME Enterprises vs. Deputy Registrar (2023), clarifying that title disputes belong in civil suits, not summary proceedings.

For the industry, it signals the need for transparent contracts and adherence to government guidelines. Regulators might push for stricter enforcement of independent assessments to minimize disputes.

In conclusion, developer’s residual rights are essential for sustainable urban growth but must not undermine homebuyers’ security. The Velantine Properties case exemplifies how courts are striking this balance, ensuring fairness through evidence-based, impartial processes. As Mumbai’s skyline evolves, informed buyers and ethical developers will be key to harmonious real estate ecosystems.

Also Read: MahaRERA asks Developers to mediate with Developers of lapsed housing projects

The post Developer’s Residual Rights in a Real Estate Project and How it Impacts Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.