The judgment, delivered on 21 July 2026 by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (Administrative) Dr. Rajagopal Devara in Appeal No. AT006000000063805 of 2022, sets aside key portions of the earlier MahaRERA order and sends a clear message on three critical issues that routinely trouble allottees: when interest stops, who bears maintenance until possession, and whether authorities can grant reliefs never asked for by the parties.

Garry Vasant Ashar and Tejal Garry Ashar had booked Flat No. 204 in Building A of Sunteck City Avenue 1 (promoted by Skystar Buildcon Private Limited and Sunteck Realty Limited) under an Agreement for Sale dated 28 May 2015 for a total consideration of ₹2,21,96,500. Clause 16 of the agreement promised possession within 54 months plus a nine-month grace period — that is, on or before 25 August 2020.

The promoters obtained a part occupancy certificate on 8 September 2020 and purported to offer possession on 15 September 2020. However, the offer was not unconditional. The allottees were told they must first clear a demand of ₹41.97 lakh that included unexplained “other charges” of ₹7.21 lakh and alleged interest on delayed payments. Despite repeated requests for clarification, the promoters refused to hand over the flat until the entire amount, including the disputed charges, was paid. The allottees finally paid the full amount on 22 March 2021. Even then, physical possession was given only on 14 March 2023 — and that too only after the Appellate Tribunal directed it and after the allottees deposited an additional sum in the Tribunal.

In the original complaint, MahaRERA (Member-1) on 14 March 2022 directed the promoters to hand over possession and pay interest only from the agreed date of possession until the date of the part OC (8 September 2020). The Authority also allowed the promoters two benefits they had never prayed for: (i) a set-off of any interest the allottees allegedly owed for delayed payments against the interest payable by the promoters, and (ii) the benefit of the COVID-19 moratorium periods notified by MahaRERA.

The allottees challenged this order, arguing that the interest should run until actual physical possession, that the offer of possession was conditional and therefore ineffective, that maintenance charges for the intervening period could not be demanded from them, and that the Authority had granted reliefs never sought by the promoters.

The Appellate Tribunal agreed on all major points.

First, on the question of interest, the Tribunal held that under Section 18 of the RERA Act, an allottee who elects to continue in the project is entitled to interest for the entire period of delay until physical possession is handed over. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunal reiterated that this right is not dependent on unforeseen events or force majeure factors that are not attributable to the allottee. The Tribunal observed that mere issuance of an occupancy certificate or a conditional offer of possession does not extinguish the statutory claim for interest. In this case, because the offer was contingent on payment of disputed and unexplained charges, the interest liability continued till 14 March 2023. The Tribunal specifically directed the promoters to pay interest on the amounts paid by the allottees from 1 August 2020 to 14 March 2023 at the rate of the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2 per cent, simple interest, within 30 days.

Second, on maintenance charges, the Tribunal held that Section 11(4)(g) of the RERA Act places a clear obligation on the promoter to pay all outgoings — including maintenance charges — until physical possession is transferred to the allottee. The promoters’ demand that the allottees pay maintenance from 15 September 2020 to 14 March 2023 was therefore illegal. The Tribunal noted that the promoters had continued to hold the flat and could not shift the burden of outgoings on to the allottees for a period during which possession was wrongfully withheld.

Third, the Tribunal strongly deprecated the grant of unprayed reliefs. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, it held that a court or tribunal cannot grant relief that has neither been pleaded nor specifically prayed for. The set-off of alleged delayed-payment interest and the COVID-19 moratorium benefit had never been sought by the promoters in their pleadings. Granting them, the Tribunal said, travelled beyond the scope of the proceedings and could not be sustained.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modified the impugned order accordingly, and also directed the promoters to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the allottees.

The judgment is significant for homebuyers across Maharashtra. It clarifies that an occupancy certificate or a paper offer of possession does not automatically stop the interest clock if the offer is conditional or if actual keys are not handed over. It also makes it clear that promoters cannot recover maintenance for the period they themselves delay handing over possession, and that regulatory authorities cannot gift reliefs that the parties never asked for.

For allottees facing similar situations — where possession is offered only after clearing disputed charges or where interest is restricted only up to the OC date — this order provides strong judicial support for claiming interest till the actual date of handover and for resisting illegal maintenance demands.

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

The post OC in 2020, Keys Only in 2023: Tribunal Forces Builder to Pay Interest Till Actual Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order was passed on 1 July 2026 by Member II Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC001000000080355 filed by homebuyer Narayan Kashinath Pathare against the promoter. The hearing was held through hybrid mode on 23 December 2025 and the matter was reserved for orders.

Background of the Case

The complainant booked Row House No. 33 in the MahaRERA-registered project (P51600021855) for a total consideration of ₹17,27,600 under an Agreement for Sale dated 17 December 2020. The project’s proposed completion date was 21 June 2024, and it received part occupancy certificate on 19 June 2024 (earlier part OC on 28 February 2023).

The complaint was filed on 18 October 2023 highlighting several issues, with the non-execution of the conveyance deed being the central grievance even after nearly three years.

Complainant’s Claims

Narayan Kashinath Pathare submitted:

• Possession was delayed by almost one year and given only in June 2022.
• He had to pay home loan EMIs without possession and claimed compensation for mental agony and financial loss at ₹10,000 per month from June 2021 to May 2022.
• The developer promised rent of ₹5,000 per month (total ₹60,000) but did not pay.
• No drinking water facility was provided after possession; he had to spend ₹3,000 per month for one year.
• Despite repeated requests, the conveyance deed was not executed. He demanded immediate execution without any conditions or extra cost.
• Penalty and compensation under Sections 18 and 31 of RERA.

Respondent’s Defence

The promoter, represented by CA Parnesh Lodha, argued:

• Possession was handed over on 1 June 2022, well before the agreed date of 21 June 2023 mentioned in Clause 12 of the Agreement for Sale. Hence, no delay occurred.
• The complainant had requested a kitchen trolley upgradation and owed ₹1,31,000 in outstanding payments.
• The buyer had breached the agreement terms and was providing misleading information to avoid his liabilities.

MahaRERA’s Observations and Decision

The Authority made these important findings:

• No Delay in Possession: Possession was given earlier than the contractual date. Therefore, all claims related to delay (interest, rent, mental agony) were rejected.
• Violation on Conveyance Deed: This was the key issue. Despite part occupancy certificates being issued and possession handed over, the promoter failed to execute the conveyance deed. This violated statutory obligations.
• Amenities: The promoter must provide all promised amenities, including proper drinking water supply.

Legal Provisions Explained

The order primarily rests on the following sections:

Section 11(4)(f) – Duties of the Promoter: The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment/plot/building in favour of the allottee along with undivided proportionate title in the common areas.

Section 17 – Transfer of Title: The promoter must execute the registered conveyance deed and hand over possession within the period specified in sanctioned plans or local laws. In the absence of local law, it must be done within three months from the date of issue of occupancy certificate.

Section 61 – General Penalty: For contravention of any other provisions of the Act, the promoter is liable to a penalty up to 5% of the estimated cost of the project. MahaRERA imposed ₹50,000 in this case.

Final Order

A. Complaint allowed. B. Respondent directed to execute the conveyance deed forthwith and submit a copy to MahaRERA. C. Penalty of ₹50,000 imposed under Section 61 for violation of Sections 11(4)(f) and 17. D. Respondent to provide all amenities, including proper water supply. E. All other reliefs (financial compensation for delay, rent, water expenses) rejected. F. No order as to costs.

Also Read: “You Stayed in It — So Stop Complaining”: How MahaRERA Let a Builder Off the Hook After 35 Months of Illegal Delay

The post MahaRERA Penalises Developers ₹50,000 for Failing to Execute Conveyance Deed appeared first on Square Feat India.

The draft proposal, prepared by the Municipal Commissioner and dated 22 June 2026, seeks to grant Occupancy Certificates to buildings occupied before 17 November 2016. It follows the state Urban Development Department’s directive of December 2025 and aims to provide long-pending relief to homebuyers and societies facing hurdles in property transactions, loans, and redevelopment.

Key Provisions of the Draft

The scheme covers residential buildings (with predominant residential use), hospitals, and schools that have valid IOD and Commencement Certificate and were occupied before the cut-off date. For residential units, the benefit is available to those with carpet area up to 80 square metres (approximately 861 sq ft).

Major concessions include a 50% discount on regularization fees, balcony/otla penalties, and other charges. A time-bound penalty waiver has also been proposed for regularizing areas previously shown as free of FSI — zero penalty if applied in the first six months and 50% penalty if applied between six and twelve months.

Significantly, individual flat owners can now apply directly through a licensed surveyor. Their applications will be processed independently, with common area issues de-linked. Pending setback or DP road land transfers will also not block OC issuance; BMC will process the certificate and pursue land-related compliances separately.

“Priority to Up to 800 sq ft Homes”

BMC Leader of the House Ganesh Khankar said the civic body’s focus is on delivering relief to residents. “Our aim is to give relief to the residents and priority is up to 800 sq ft homes. The draft will be presented in the standing committee tomorrow (June 24) and shall sail through,” he said.

Concerns Over Implementation

While welcoming the intent, legal expert Adv Vivekanand Gupta pointed out practical difficulties in the draft. He said that while the proposal contains several positive elements, uploading documents on the Auto-DCR portal could prove cumbersome for common citizens.

“Instead of forcing people to upload documents online, officials in every ward of BMC in the city should have been made to sit and help take applications and facilitate the OC process,” Adv Gupta said, adding that ground-level facilitation would make the scheme more accessible and effective.

Limitations Remain

The current draft has some clear limitations. It does not cover general commercial buildings (only schools and hospitals qualify under non-residential). Units larger than 80 sq.m carpet area are excluded. The scheme applies only to authorised constructions and does not regularise unauthorised buildings. Broader demands — removal of the size cap and inclusion of all commercial properties — remain pending with the state government for revised guidelines.

Next Steps

The draft will be placed before the BMC Standing Committee on June 24. Once approved, it will go to the Municipal Corporation for final clearance. After notification, BMC will activate a dedicated “OC Amnesty Scheme” tab on the Auto-DCR portal for online applications.

Applications received during the validity period will be processed even after the scheme formally ends. BMC has clarified that the scheme does not absolve original developers of their legal responsibilities for other violations.

The proposed amnesty is expected to benefit thousands of old residential buildings across Mumbai, particularly smaller homes that have long struggled without Occupancy Certificates. However, the success of the scheme will largely depend on how effectively BMC implements the process on the ground and addresses the practical concerns raised by citizens and experts.

Also Read: Maharashtra Announces Revised OC Amnesty Scheme to Regularize 20,000 Unauthorized Buildings in Mumbai

The post Exclusive: BMC OC Amnesty Scheme; Draft to be Presented in Standing Committee Tomorrow appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, pronounced on June 5, 2026 by Member Mahesh Pathak, highlights critical lessons for homebuyers regarding the binding nature of settlements and the jurisdictional nuances under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Background of the Dispute

The case pertains to Flat No. 308 in the “Piccadilly IV” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800004140) located at Survey No. 169, Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon East, Mumbai. Complainant Uma Masurkar claimed she had made full down payment for the flat. However, instead of a conventional Agreement for Sale, a registered Agreement of Lease dated 10-04-2019 was executed jointly between the promoter (as lessor) and Uma Masurkar along with her brother Siddhesh Masurkar (as lessees).

In November 2019, Uma Masurkar filed Complaint No. CC006000000161382 before MahaRERA, citing severe deficiencies: delay in obtaining Occupancy Certificate (OC), flooding, poor construction quality, contaminated water, structural defects, lack of fire safety, and health issues affecting her premature twins and elderly father. She sought ₹80 lakhs as full and final settlement or directions to hand over OC and statutory approvals within seven days, along with heavy compensation.

The Settlement That Proved Decisive

Just weeks after filing the complaint, on 26-11-2019, the parties executed a Settlement Letter. The promoter paid ₹6.25 lakhs to Uma Masurkar. In return, she agreed to treat all complaints before MahaRERA and other authorities as withdrawn. The promoter later produced proof of payment, which the complainant did not dispute.

An earlier MahaRERA order dated 01-06-2021 had favoured the complainant (directing OC or refund with interest), but this was passed without considering the settlement, as the matter was heard ex-parte against the promoter.

Appellate Intervention and Remand

The promoter challenged the 2021 order before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal. In its order dated 04-02-2026, the Tribunal set aside the earlier ruling specifically for this complaint and remanded the matter back to MahaRERA for fresh adjudication on merits, giving due importance to the settlement letter. The Tribunal also rejected Siddhesh Masurkar’s intervention application.

Fresh Hearings and Key Arguments

During hearings in March-April 2026, several crucial issues emerged:

1. Lease vs Sale – Jurisdiction Question: The respondent strongly argued that since the transaction was a lease arrangement and not a sale, it fell outside the purview of RERA, which primarily governs allottees under Agreements for Sale. Despite this jurisdictional challenge, MahaRERA proceeded to hear the complaint in full on merits — a unique aspect of this order.
2. Non-Joinder of Co-Lessee: The promoter highlighted that Siddhesh Masurkar, the joint lessee and brother of the complainant, was a necessary party. Any refund or cancellation would require his involvement, as the lease remained valid in both names. Siddhesh Masurkar filed an intervention application claiming co-ownership interest, but MahaRERA noted that the Appellate Tribunal had already rejected his plea. The Authority declined to entertain fresh intervention while acknowledging that the joint nature of the lease complicated any relief.
3. Binding Settlement: The promoter emphasised that the complainant had accepted the ₹6.25 lakh settlement and agreed to withdraw all cases. The settlement letter explicitly stated that all pending complaints would be treated as withdrawn. MahaRERA held the complainant bound by these terms.
4. Occupancy Certificate Obtained: The promoter informed the Authority that the OC was received on 09-06-2022, addressing one of the core grievances.

MahaRERA’s Ruling and Reasoning

In the detailed order, Member Mahesh Pathak observed:

• The complainant is bound by the Settlement Letter dated 26-11-2019. Having accepted the consideration, she cannot reagitate the same cause of action.
• With the OC now in place, the primary grievance regarding possession formalities stood addressed.
• Issues relating to construction quality, amenities, water supply, fire safety, and health damages involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated summarily in RERA proceedings, especially post-settlement.
• Due to the joint lease, granting refund or cancellation without the other co-lessee would be improper.

Result: The complaint was dismissed in its entirety. No refund, interest, or additional compensation was granted.

Implications for Homebuyers

This case underscores two important realities in RERA disputes:

• Settlements are final and binding. Accepting money and agreeing to withdraw cases can permanently close the door on higher claims, even if buyers later regret the decision.
• Document matters: Entering into a Lease Deed instead of an Agreement for Sale can fundamentally alter the legal relationship (from allottee-promoter to tenant-landlord) and affect remedies available under RERA. Buyers should exercise extreme caution before signing any document and ensure it aligns with their understanding of the transaction.

The ruling also shows that while MahaRERA may entertain cases even when jurisdiction is contested, outcomes often hinge on documentary evidence like settlements and the nature of the underlying agreement.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post Lease Deed, No Sale Agreement: MahaRERA Hears Case Anyway appeared first on Square Feat India.

The complainant had booked flat No. 103 on the first floor of B-Wing in Building No. 2 under the Agreement for Sale dated July 16, 2018, for a total consideration of ₹16.84 lakh. The developer had promised possession by June 30, 2019. However, the allottee received only physical possession in December 2020 and a formal possession letter on December 27, 2020.

Crucially, the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the building was obtained by the developer only on March 23, 2021. MahaRERA held that handing over physical possession without a valid Occupancy Certificate does not constitute lawful delivery of possession under RERA provisions. The Authority therefore calculated the delay from July 1, 2019, to March 23, 2021.

The developer argued that the complainant had accepted possession and that delays were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, MahaRERA rejected the moratorium benefit, noting that the original promised possession date fell well before the pandemic outbreak. The Authority also observed that the complainant had amended the complaint to seek interest under Section 18 instead of refund, which was allowed during proceedings.

In its detailed order, MahaRERA ruled that the promoter failed to deliver possession in accordance with the Agreement for Sale. The respondent must pay interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017, on the entire amount paid by the allottee for the period of delay. The interest amount has to be paid within 60 days from the date of the order. Any outstanding dues of the complainant will be adjusted against this interest. Additionally, the developer has been directed to pay ₹20,000 towards the cost of the litigation.

This order reinforces two key principles under RERA: first, that legal possession is complete only after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, and second, that developers cannot claim force majeure benefits for delays when the original deadline predates the disruptive event.

Homebuyer advocates have welcomed the ruling, calling it a reminder to developers that premature handover without OC will not help them escape liability for delay compensation. The Vrundavan project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700003306) has seen multiple phases and staggered occupancy certificates over the years.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post MahaRERA Orders Interest for Delayed Possession in Kalyan’s Vrundavan Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case involves homebuyer Talat Asmat Falke, who booked two flats (No. 1201 and 1202) in the project in Kalyan West, Thane district, through agreements dated May 8, 2018. The buyer paid the full consideration: ₹40 lakh for one flat and ₹24 lakh for the other. The promised possession date was July 31, 2020.

Why This Order Matters for Homebuyers

Many buyers assume that getting keys or “physical access” means legal possession. This judgment clarifies that under RERA (Real Estate Regulation Act, 2016), possession is only formal and legal when:

• The builder obtains the Occupancy Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate.
• The OC is shared with the buyer.
• Formal possession is handed over with documentation (like a possession letter or receipt).

Informal access (e.g., “fit-out” keys for interiors) before or even after OC doesn’t count if paperwork isn’t complete. The Tribunal stressed that builders can’t escape delay penalties by giving early keys while delaying formal handover.

Chronological Sequence of Events – Made Simple

Here’s the timeline of what happened, step by step, to make the confusing aspects crystal clear:

1. May 8, 2018 – Buyer signs agreements for two flats. Promised possession: July 31, 2020. Full payment made.
2. July 2020 – Builder gives informal “fit-out possession” (keys for interiors, permission to use lift for materials). No OC yet – so this is not legal possession under RERA. (Section 11(4)(b) requires OC before handover.)
3. January 5, 2021 – Builder obtains Part Occupancy Certificate from Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC). Covid extensions by MahaRERA had pushed many project deadlines to around January 31, 2021.
4. March 2021 – Buyer files two complaints with MahaRERA, demanding:
   • Formal possession with interest for delay (under Section 18).
   • Other issues like unauthorized added floors, reduced parking, and no housing society formed.
5. September 2021 (letter dated 20/28.09.2021) – Builder writes an official letter to KDMC Town Planner admitting that possession has NOT been handed over to flat buyers (including this one). No possession receipts issued. This letter becomes key evidence.
6. During RERA proceedings – Builder’s own affidavit repeats: Possession still not handed over (citing pandemic delays).
7. December 9, 2022 – MahaRERA dismisses both complaints. Reason: OC obtained in Jan 2021 + Covid extension means no violation. They accepted builder’s claim of “physical possession” in July 2020.
8. 2023 – Buyer appeals to MahaREAT (Appeal Nos. AT006/144278 & AT006/144279 of 2023).
9. March 7–9, 2026 – Tribunal hears arguments, reserves order, and pronounces judgment:
   • Partly allows appeals.
   • Sets aside MahaRERA’s dismissal on delay issue.
   • Rules builder violated Section 18 by not giving formal possession even after OC.
   • Builder’s contradictions (early keys vs. later admissions of no handover) prove non-compliance.
   • Orders interest payment on full amount paid, at SBI highest MCLR + 2%, from January 31, 2021 until the date of actual formal possession (with OC provided).

Key Takeaways for Homebuyers

• Don’t rely on verbal promises or early keys – always insist on formal possession letter + OC.
• If your builder delays formal handover (even after OC), you may claim interest under Section 18.
• Builder admissions in official letters or affidavits can be powerful evidence in appeals.
• This ruling strengthens buyer protections: Covid excuses don’t override the need for proper paperwork.

The project (a small development with ~57–62 units, mostly 1 & 2 BHK flats) was marketed as ready-to-move post-2021, but cases like this show how paperwork gaps can lead to long delays and compensation claims.

Parties bear their own costs. The order has been communicated to MahaRERA and the parties.

Also Read: Builders want stamp duty reduced to 1% for 4 months

The post Builder’s Own Letter Exposes Lie: No Possession Given Even After OC – Tribunal Orders Interest For Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

Chairperson Manoj Saunik’s order dated February 12, 2026 (hearing January 8, 2026) emphatically rejected the promoter’s attempt to use a unilateral termination notice — issued on September 9, 2025 — to evade liability for delayed possession. The termination came nearly four years after the homebuyers (Pranav Pravinchandra Dhrafani, Siddhi P. Dhrafani, and Bhadra P. Dhrafani) filed their complaint in November 2021, and MahaRERA ruled it could not extinguish their statutory rights under Section 18 while the project remains incomplete.

The allottees booked flat A-2204 (plus car parking) in April 2017 under a subvention scheme, with the Agreement for Sale (AFS) executed belatedly on February 7, 2019, promising possession by December 31, 2021, for ₹1.25 crore (partly via DHFL home loan). No Occupancy Certificate (OC) has been obtained, and the project’s registration has lapsed, with the MahaRERA portal showing an extended completion date of December 30, 2025.

Buyers’ Case They alleged builder delays in AFS execution, default on subvention interest (causing lender recovery/arbitration against them), incomplete amenity disclosures, and persistent non-delivery. Reliefs sought included delay interest from 2019/2021, possession with timeline, compensation for agony/rental loss, and more.

Builder’s Defense & Termination Play The promoter blamed delays on slum rehab disputes (AGRC/HC orders, resolved by Supreme Court in 2022) and COVID-19. They claimed buyer payment defaults (₹29.89 lakh outstanding), a tripartite agreement, and lender arbitration. Key tactic: A termination notice dated September 9, 2025 — post-complaint — asserting cancellation due to buyer defaults, to argue the complaint was no longer maintainable.

MahaRERA’s Rejection of Termination Logic The Authority observed:

• Delay cause of action arose in 2021–2022; buyers approached MahaRERA first in 2021.
• No demand notices from builder 2023–2025; buyers emailed repeatedly for dues clarification — ignored — then sudden termination.
• Under Section 18(1)(a), delay triggers automatic interest liability — independent of contracts or unilateral terminations.
• Late, one-sided termination (after cause of action and complaint) cannot retroactively erase accrued rights while project incomplete and no lawful possession/OC offered.
• Builder’s non-response weakened “wilful default” claims.

Final Relief Granted

• Complaint partially allowed.
• Interest on paid amounts (excluding taxes/stamp duty/etc.) from January 1, 2022, at SBI highest MCLR + 2% till handover with full OC.
• Accrued interest adjustable against genuine dues; remaining paid by builder within 60 days.
• Ongoing interest till possession payable within 30 days post-handover.
• Builder to apply for extension within 30 days (else Section 63 penalty).
• COVID moratorium benefit (2020–2021 notifications) deducted from delay period.
• Other claims (extra compensation, costs, etc.) rejected; no costs awarded.

This ruling sends a strong message: Builders cannot dodge RERA accountability via late, unilateral terminations after buyers invoke statutory remedies. It aligns with Supreme Court views on indefeasible Section 18 rights in delayed projects.

Also Read: Homebuyers Can’t Double-Dip: MahaREAT Says Civil Suit Blocks Later RERA Complaints

The post Homebuyers File RERA Complaint – Builder Terminates Agreement 4 Years Later – Authority Says: No Escape appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Detailed Order

The bench, comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri, issued sweeping directives to all civic bodies across Maharashtra, including Corporations, Municipal Councils, Local Authorities, and Gram Panchayats. Key points from the order include:

• Prohibition on Issuing OCs: No structure shall receive an OC until it complies with approved plans, building permissions, and—crucially—has an STP constructed, especially for high-rise buildings. If underground sewage pipelines are provided by civic bodies, buildings must connect to them instead.
• Statewide Survey and Blacklisting: All authorities must conduct a drive to inventory buildings without STPs (unless connected to civic drainage). Builders and construction companies failing to provide STPs or proper sewage management will be blacklisted. A list of such entities must be compiled based on their existing structures.
• Consequences for Non-Compliance: In cases where OCs are granted without these facilities, the court warned of blacklisting builders and initiating action against responsible civic officers. The order emphasizes that future violations will not be tolerated.
• Committee Oversight: The High Court Constituted Committee (also known as the Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council Area Improvement Committee) has been restructured, with the District Collector of Thane appointed as Chairperson. The committee must meet fortnightly, starting January 21, 2026, and submit minutes to the court by January 28, 2026. Members, excluding the Chairperson, must appear in court on that date for a compliance hearing.
• Support for STP Installation: Builders facing obstruction from society members in installing STPs will receive police protection from municipal councils. This applies to both new and existing buildings under scrutiny.
• Reiteration of Prior Directions: The court referenced its earlier order from August 14, 2025, reiterating that it will take action against anyone obstructing compliance. It also reviewed an affidavit from Additional District Collector Harishchandra Patil, dismissing it as an “eye wash” due to lack of effective action.

The order builds on previous judgments, including one from September 19, 2025, and incorporates suggestions from court-appointed expert G.M. Arch Pvt. Ltd. A comparative chart (‘X-1’) highlighted the municipal council’s failure to meet deadlines for short-term and long-term measures to stop sewage dumping.

Why the High Court Issued This Order

The ruling stems from a public interest litigation highlighting severe pollution in the Ulhas River caused by untreated sewage from approximately 438 unauthorized structures in the Kulgaon-Badlapur area. Builders had constructed these without STPs, leading to direct dumping into the river—a “human-created problem” of enormous magnitude, as described by the court.

The judges expressed dismay at the Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council’s repeated delays and superficial efforts. Despite appointing an expert and a committee, no meaningful progress was made. The affidavit submitted was seen as an attempt to mislead the court, with no deadlines honored and only short-term measures proposed. The court aimed to enforce accountability, warning that continued inaction could amount to contempt. This order is part of a broader effort to protect rivers and ensure sustainable urban development, addressing systemic failures in sewage management that threaten public health and the environment.

What It Means for Maharashtra

This directive has far-reaching implications for the real estate sector and urban planning in Maharashtra:

• For Builders and Developers: Mandatory STPs or drainage connections will increase construction costs but enforce environmental compliance. Blacklisting could bar non-compliant companies from future projects, potentially reshaping the industry by favoring responsible builders.
• For Homebuyers and Residents: It ensures safer, more sustainable living environments by preventing occupancy in buildings without proper sewage systems. Existing societies may see retrofits, with police aid to overcome resistance.
• For Civic Authorities: Officers face personal liability for violations, promoting stricter enforcement. The statewide survey could expose widespread irregularities, leading to reforms in approval processes.
• Environmental Impact: By halting sewage dumping, the order could significantly reduce river pollution, setting a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues.

The next compliance hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., where the court will review progress. Legal experts hail this as a proactive step toward eco-friendly urbanization, though implementation challenges remain.

Also Read: Redevelopment Disputes Can’t Be Thrown Out Without Trial: Bombay High Court

The post No OC for Buildings Till STP Installation: Bombay High Court Clamps Down on Sewage Pollution appeared first on Square Feat India.

Understanding Section 17(1) of RERA

Section 17(1) of the RERA Act deals with the “Transfer of Title.” It states: “The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in favor of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, and hand over the physical possession of the plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, to the allottees and the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, in a real estate project, and the other title documents pertaining thereto within specified period as per sanctioned plans as provided under the local laws.”

The proviso to this section adds: “Provided that, in the absence of any local law, conveyance deed in favor of the allottee or the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, under this section shall be carried out by the promoter within three months from date of issue of occupancy certificate.”

This provision ensures that once a project receives its occupancy certificate (OC), signifying that the building is ready for habitation, the developer cannot delay the legal transfer of ownership. If local laws (such as state-specific real estate regulations) do not specify a different timeline, the three-month period becomes mandatory.

What is a Conveyance Deed?

A conveyance deed is a legal document that formally transfers the ownership rights of a property from one party (the seller or developer) to another (the buyer, allottee, or housing society). It includes details such as the property description, boundaries, rights, and any encumbrances. Once registered with the sub-registrar’s office, it serves as proof of absolute ownership, replacing any provisional agreements like the agreement for sale.

Why is a Conveyance Deed Necessary for a Housing Society?

For a housing society (or association of allottees), a conveyance deed is essential because it grants full legal title to the land and common areas of the project. Without it:

• The society cannot independently manage, maintain, or redevelop the property.
• Individual flat owners may face issues in selling or mortgaging their units, as banks and buyers require clear title.
• It protects against future disputes with the developer over land rights or amenities.
• It enables the society to obtain utilities, property tax assessments, and other services in its own name.

In essence, the deed empowers the society to function as the true owner, fostering self-governance and preventing developers from retaining undue control post-completion.

It is mandatory for developers to execute this conveyance deed within the three-month timeframe from the OC issuance. Failure to comply can lead to penalties under RERA, including fines, project de-registration, or legal action by allottees through the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Homebuyers and societies are advised to monitor OC dates and pursue remedies if developers delay.

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

The post Developers Mandated to Execute Conveyance Deed Within 3 Months of Occupancy Certificate appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Promoter’s Obligation Under Section 11(4)(e)

Under RERA, promoters are responsible for various duties to protect allottees (homebuyers). One critical obligation is enabling the creation of a legal entity for the buyers, such as a cooperative housing society, company, association, or federation. This entity acts as the collective voice and management body for the residents in a building or wing of a project.

MahaRERA’s FAQ explicitly states that the promoter must “enable formation of Legal Entity like Cooperative Society, Company, Association, Federation etc.” This goes beyond mere paperwork; it involves initiating the process, providing necessary documents, and cooperating with buyers to register the entity under applicable laws, such as the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Failure to comply can lead to penalties, complaints to MahaRERA, or even project deregistration, highlighting the authority’s commitment to transparency and buyer protection in the real estate sector.

The Prescribed Time Limit for Formation

A common question among homebuyers is whether there’s a deadline for this formation. According to MahaRERA, yes—there is a strict timeline to prevent developers from indefinitely delaying the handover of control.

The promoter is required to initiate and enable the formation within three months from either:

• The date on which 51% of the total number of purchasers in the building or wing have booked their apartments, or
• The receipt of the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the project.

This “whichever is earlier” approach ensures that the process starts promptly once a majority of units are sold or the building is deemed habitable. For instance, if a project has 100 apartments and 51 buyers have completed bookings, the clock starts ticking immediately, regardless of OC status. Conversely, if OC is issued before 51% bookings, the three-month window begins from the OC date.

This provision applies to registered projects under MahaRERA, and buyers can track project details, including booking status and OC issuance, via the MahaRERA portal (maharera.maharashtra.gov.in). If the promoter drags their feet, buyers can file a complaint with MahaRERA, which has powers to impose fines up to 5% of the project cost or direct compliance.

Why Forming a Housing Society is Crucial for Homebuyers

Forming a housing society shifts power from the developer to the residents, marking the end of unilateral control by the promoter. Without this, developers might continue managing common areas, maintenance, and funds, potentially leading to disputes over service quality, fund misuse, or arbitrary decisions.

In Maharashtra, where high-rise apartments and gated communities are common, delayed society formation has historically led to issues like inflated maintenance charges or incomplete amenities. MahaRERA’s rule addresses these by enforcing a timeline, aligning with the broader goal of RERA to promote accountability in real estate. It protects buyers from “perpetual developer dominance,” ensuring that once a critical mass of residents is in place or the building is ready, collective governance takes over.

Moreover, in the absence of local laws specifying otherwise, this three-month rule acts as a default safeguard, preventing developers from exploiting loopholes.

Key Benefits of a Formed Housing Society

The formation of a housing society offers numerous advantages, transforming passive buyers into active stakeholders. Here are some key benefits:

• Collective Ownership and Control: The society gains legal title to common areas like gardens, parking lots, gyms, and elevators through conveyance (deed transfer), typically required under Section 17 of RERA within three months of OC. This prevents developers from retaining undue influence.
• Financial Transparency: Residents can manage maintenance funds, audit accounts, and set fair charges. This reduces the risk of overbilling, which is common under developer-led interim committees.
• Decision-Making Power: Societies can vote on rules, elect office-bearers, and resolve disputes internally, fostering a democratic community environment. For example, decisions on repairs, security, or vendor contracts become resident-driven.
• Legal Protection and Dispute Resolution: As a registered entity, the society can sue or be sued, represent members in courts, and access government schemes like subsidies for rainwater harvesting or solar installations.
• Value Appreciation and Resale Ease: A well-managed society enhances property value. Buyers prefer projects with established societies, as it signals stability and reduces post-purchase hassles.
• Community Building: It promotes social cohesion, allowing residents to organize events, address grievances collectively, and negotiate with external parties like municipal authorities for better services.

In essence, a housing society empowers buyers to safeguard their investment, ensuring long-term habitability and harmony.

Consequences of Developer Non-Compliance and Remedies

If a promoter fails to meet the three-month deadline, homebuyers aren’t powerless. MahaRERA allows allottees to approach the authority for intervention, potentially leading to directives for immediate formation, fines, or compensation. In severe cases, repeated violations could result in the promoter’s blacklisting.

Additionally, under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, buyers can independently form a society if the developer delays, but MahaRERA’s involvement strengthens their case. Recent MahaRERA orders have directed developers to form societies and execute conveyances, setting precedents for enforcement.

Advice for Homebuyers: Stay Informed and Proactive

Homebuyers should monitor project progress on the MahaRERA website, verify booking percentages, and demand updates on OC status. Joining buyer groups early can help coordinate with the promoter. If delays occur, document communications and file timely complaints via MahaRERA’s online portal.

In conclusion, MahaRERA’s provision under Section 11(4)(e) is a vital shield for homebuyers, ensuring timely empowerment through housing society formation. By understanding and leveraging this rule, buyers can secure their rights and enjoy a smoother ownership experience.

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

The post MahaRERA’s Rule on Housing Society Formation: A Guide for Homebuyers in Maharashtra appeared first on Square Feat India.