MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande, in the order dated 07 May 2026, ruled that the Agreements for Sale stand terminated, but restricted the forfeiture to only 2% of the total unit cost — far lower than the nearly 10% plus additional charges (interest, brokerage, and GST) that the developer had demanded.

Cases in Detail

Gera Developments filed two complaints:

1. CC005000000269618 – Against Mr. Prem Prakash Singh & Mrs. Priyanka Singh for Unit 1201 (12th Floor, F1 Tower). Agreement registered on 11 March 2022.
2. CC005000000279748 – Against Mr. Ganesh Uttamrao Dhamdhere for Unit G04 (Podium Floor, F1 Tower). Agreement registered on 04 October 2022.

The developer claimed the buyers repeatedly defaulted on installments despite multiple reminders and legal notices issued in 2023. The company invoked Clause 36 of the Agreement and formally terminated both deals.

Builder’s Demand vs RERA Decision

Gera Developments wanted to forfeit around 10% of the basic sale price along with interest, brokerage, and GST components. This would have allowed them to retain over ₹12 lakh in one case and over ₹11.6 lakh in the other.

However, MahaRERA held that while the cancellations were justified due to breach of contract and violation of Section 19(6) of the RERA Act, excessive forfeiture is not permissible. Citing its earlier Order No. 35/2022, the authority limited forfeiture to a reasonable 2% of the total unit cost in both matters.

The builder has been directed to refund the remaining amount paid by the buyers after deducting the 2% forfeiture. The developer must also bear the expenses of executing and registering the cancellation deeds.

Next Steps

The homebuyers have 60 days to execute the Cancellation Deeds. If they fail to do so, Gera Developments can file a non-compliance application under MahaRERA Circular No. 50/2025.

The allottees remained absent during the hearings, which strengthened the developer’s case on the issue of cancellation.

Industry Takeaway

This ruling highlights MahaRERA’s balanced approach — supporting developers against chronic defaulters while preventing unfair profiteering through excessive penalties. The project “Gera’s Planet of Joy IV” is registered under MahaRERA No. P52100031876.

Also Read: MahaRERA Told Homebuyers to Cooperate. Tribunal Tells Builder to Pay Up

The post Builder Drags Homebuyers to MahaRERA for Non-Payment, Gets Flats Cancelled & Money Forfeited appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute centres on Adenwalla Building, a leasehold property in Matunga-Dadar (Plot No. 626 / new Survey No. 1109 part, C.S. No. 633/10), where original lessee Rusi Sorabji Khambatta (Defendant No.1) transferred his entire leasehold rights — including the ground-plus-three-storey building and all tenant tenancies — to Pankh Properties Private Limited via a registered Deed of Assignment dated 20 November 2012.

Chronological Timeline of the High-Stakes Deal & Dispute

• Pre-2012: Mr. Khambatta held leasehold rights from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). He was already litigating eviction proceedings (since 1993) against tenant Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck in Flat No. 9 at the Small Causes Court.
• 20 November 2012 — The core transaction:
  • Registered Deed of Assignment → Mr. Khambatta unconditionally assigned the full leasehold interest in the building to Pankh Properties for ₹12 crore (full consideration received and admitted).
  • Registered Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Pankh Properties.
  • Registered Declaration confirming handover of physical possession and all original title documents.
  • Individual Letters of Attornment sent to tenants, shifting landlord status to Pankh Properties (except the disputed Flat No. 9).
  • Separate unregistered Supplemental Agreement (same date) → Mr. Khambatta expressed interest in purchasing 7,750 sq ft in any future redevelopment at ₹7,250 per sq ft — a conditional “wish” clause, not linked to the main Deed.
• 2013 → Pankh Properties wrote to all tenants proposing redevelopment terms. No meaningful response came (except from Mr. Khambatta’s family members). Redevelopment stalled indefinitely.
• 2012–2025 (13 quiet years) → Pankh Properties acted as landlord: collected rents, paid municipal taxes, repair cess, and maintained the property uninterrupted. Mr. Khambatta raised no objection and never pursued specific performance of the redevelopment “wish”.
• 2025 developments:
  • Shareholding of Pankh Properties changed hands (allegedly coming under influence of tenant Darius Kavasmaneck or family).
  • Mr. Khambatta claimed this amounted to collusion to block redevelopment.
  • 11 June 2025 → Mr. Khambatta issued a termination notice purporting to cancel the 2012 Deed and Power of Attorney, citing:
    • Alleged linkage to unfulfilled redevelopment.
    • Lack of prior MCGM permission under Section 92(dddd) of the MMC Act.
    • Fraud/collusion.
  • Public notices in newspapers warned third parties against dealing with Pankh Properties.
• Pankh Properties filed Suit No. 359/2025 + Interim Application No. 7408/2025 seeking injunctions against the termination and slander of title.
• Mr. Khambatta filed a counter-claim + Interim Application (L) No. 2426/2026 demanding cancellation of the Deed, declaration that the deal was redevelopment-only, and massive damages (over ₹310 crore claimed).

Bombay High Court Order (4 March 2026) — Justice Milind N. Jadhav

After detailed hearings, the court delivered a prima facie verdict strongly favouring Pankh Properties:

• The 2012 Deed was absolute, unconditional, and fully acted upon — money paid, possession delivered, tenancies attorned.
• Unilateral termination of registered documents after 13 years is legally impermissible (citing Supreme Court precedents like Thota Ganga Laxmi).
• Missing MCGM permission does not void the Deed; it can be regularized via penalty/premium — not a ground for Mr. Khambatta to reclaim after pocketing ₹12 crore.
• The Supplemental Agreement (redevelopment interest) was separate and frustrated due to lack of tenant consent; it never conditioned the main Deed.
• Shareholding changes in Pankh Properties are irrelevant corporate matters; no fraud proven to unwind the 2012 transfer.
• Mr. Khambatta’s 13-year silence after receiving full payment makes his 2025 reversal an “afterthought and counterblast”.

Outcome:

• Pankh Properties’ interim application allowed → Temporary injunction restraining Mr. Khambatta (and others) from acting on the termination notice, holding himself out as owner, or interfering.
• Mr. Khambatta’s interim application rejected with ₹25,000 costs payable to the Bombay High Court Library.
• Stay of the order refused.

Why This Order Matters

The ruling reinforces core principles in property law: once a registered conveyance is completed with consideration paid and possession transferred, it cannot be casually undone years later by the transferor — especially not via mere notice. It protects bona fide assignees from opportunistic reversals, deters title-slandering through public notices, and signals that technical lapses (like missing civic permissions) do not automatically nullify deals after decades of acceptance. In Mumbai’s high-stakes redevelopment market, where leasehold transfers and stalled projects are common, the decision offers clarity and deters similar belated challenges.

The full suit continues, but today’s interim order tilts the balance decisively toward Pankh Properties while criticising Mr. Khambatta’s conduct.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Rejects Vile Parle Housing Society’s Demand for Excess Lease Premium

The post Mumbai Building Saga: ₹12 Cr Deal Stands — Owner’s 13-Yr U-Turn Crushed by Bombay HC! appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Court held that the 1962 document was a registered sale deed, not a mortgage or loan arrangement — and therefore the petitioner had no right to reclaim the land more than 60 years later.

The Case: Was It a Loan or a Sale?

The petitioner argued that his father had sold the property for a nominal ₹300 with a condition allowing him to repay the money within five years and get the land back.
He claimed this proved it was a loan, not a permanent sale.

The respondent, however, relied on the registered sale deed of 2 July 1962, which showed:

• It was a completed sale, not a mortgage.
• Ownership had legally transferred.
• There was no clause that automatically cancelled the sale if the seller repaid the amount.

The High Court agreed with the respondent.

Why the Claim Failed

The Court made it clear that:

• Once a registered sale deed is executed, the buyer becomes the absolute owner.
• A “right to repurchase” must be explicitly stated and legally structured — vague conditions do not alter the nature of a sale.
• The petitioner’s claim — raised decades later — had no legal basis.

The Court found no evidence that the transaction was a loan or that the ₹300 payment was a mortgage advance. It emphasised that intention must be reflected in the written deed, not assumed later.

Lesson for Common People: Do Not Rely on Oral Promises

The order reinforces a simple but crucial message:

If a document is unclear, you risk losing your property forever.

Many older land transactions were informal, handwritten, or based on trust. This case shows that:

• Courts go strictly by what is written in the registered document.
• Oral understandings, family assurances, or “informal conditions” carry no legal weight.
• If a buyback or repayment condition exists, it must be drafted clearly, with proper legal structure.

Also Read: 87 Land Deals for 1862+ Acres Closed in FY-23

The post Sold Land for ₹300 in 1962, Lost It Forever: Bombay HC Reminds Why Agreements Must Be Clear appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a case that exposes the limits of RERA as a safeguard for homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ordered relief to three allottees—Pooja Dudani, Ashok Dudani and Bhavna Dudani—after a five-year delay in possession of their flat in Tycoons Valley Tower A (Emerald Wing), a project of Milestone Space in Kalyan (Reg. No. P51700009259).

The order highlights a painful truth: even with RERA in place and a registered agreement signed after the Act came into force, possession is not guaranteed on time.

Flat Booked in 2018, Promised Possession in 2019… Still Waiting in 2025

• Agreement Signed: 31 January 2018
• Promised Possession Date: 31 December 2019
• Flat: 606, Emerald Wing, Tycoons Valley
• Amount Paid: Approx. ₹37.9 lakh

Despite paying nearly 80% of the flat cost, the Dudani family says the project’s construction saw long periods of complete inactivity, forcing them into years of rent, financial stress, and health consequences, especially for senior citizen Ashok Dudani.

Homebuyers: Financial Loss, Emotional Toll, and Broken Promises

The complainants told MahaRERA:

• They were repeatedly promised possession — first in 2019, then 2021 — but deadlines kept shifting.
• They were assured ₹25,000 per month as rent compensation, which never materialized.
• Construction remained stalled for years, with no even basic updates from the promoter.
• They incurred rent expenses, medical costs, and mental distress over the extended delay.

Initially, they asked for refund + interest, but considering sunk costs and emotional investment, they later sought possession plus interest for the delayed period.

Promoter’s Defence: PILs, TDR Issues, Demonetisation, GST, COVID

Milestone Space claimed the delay was due to external and uncontrollable causes:

• Litigation around the Dombivli dumping ground causing CC delays
• Reservation and TDR complications
• GST rollout, demonetisation
• COVID-19 force majeure
• Financial crisis due to heavy infrastructure investment

The promoter argued that they received extensions up to 30 June 2024 under Section 7(3) and therefore cannot be faulted for the delay.

They also rejected the homebuyers’ request for free parking, offering only a 50% discount, which the complainants did not accept.

Conciliation Attempts Failed — Buyers Proposed Settlement, Promoter Declined

During hearings, the complainants presented a settlement proposal:

• 50% of the calculated delayed interest (~₹16 lakh)
• Free parking
• No interest on the remaining payable amount
• Compensation worth ₹5 lakh
• Fixed possession date with penalties

The promoter refused all except the waiver of interest on the pending amount, which led to the case moving to final adjudication.

MahaRERA: Delay is Undisputed, Homebuyers Entitled to Interest

MahaRERA observed:

• Promoter is bound by the 31 December 2019 possession date mentioned in the registered agreement.
• Delays of this magnitude clearly violate Section 18 of the RERA Act, which guarantees:
  • Interest for every month of delay, if the buyer chooses to stay in the project
  • OR refund + interest, if the buyer opts out

Since the complainants chose to continue with the project, they became entitled to monthly interest for the delay period, until possession is delivered.

Why This Case Matters

This order reinforces a harsh reality:

A RERA registration and a registered agreement do not guarantee timely possession.

Even after the Act came into effect, and even in a regulated environment, homebuyers can face:

• Multi-year delays
• No rent reimbursement
• Incomplete construction
• Uncertainty around delivery
• Long legal battles

The Dudani family’s case—spanning 5+ years of delay and multiple broken promises—is a stark reminder that RERA ensures accountability, but cannot prevent delays caused by poor planning, financial weakness, or regulatory issues.

Homebuyers Across Maharashtra Are Asking the Same Question

If RERA can penalize developers only after delays occur, does it really protect buyers from delays at all?

The Tycoons Valley case brings this debate back to the forefront.

Also Read: MahaRERA Officer Will Now Register Your Flat or Cancellation Deed if Builder Refuses

The post RERA Can’t Guarantee Delivery: MahaRERA Orders Justice After 5-Year Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

In this case, Justice Rohit W. Joshi ruled that simply constructing a house on someone else’s land, even with their permission, does not make the licence permanent or give ownership rights, unless the builder can prove that the construction was made acting upon a valid licence.

The case involved a property dispute between two real brothers from Akola — Madhukar Hatwalne and Yeshwant Hatwalne — which escalated into a decades-long legal battle over a shared plot and a house built upon it.

Background: When Permission Turned Into Possession

• The property in question was Plot No. 7, admeasuring 5040 sq. ft., in Malkapur, Akola.
• The elder brother (plaintiff) had purchased the plot in his own name in 1981.
• The younger brother (defendant) was allowed to construct a house on half of the plot, allegedly as a licensee.
• The arrangement was meant to be temporary — the plaintiff claimed the brother had agreed to vacate when asked.
• But years later, the younger brother refused to vacate, claiming that he was co-owner, or alternatively, that his possession had become ownership by “adverse possession.”

The elder brother filed a civil suit for possession in 1998, leading to a chain of appeals that ultimately reached the High Court in 2025.

Decades of Litigation: Both Brothers Gone, Dispute Remains

• The suit began in 1998, decades after the land purchase in 1981.
• Both brothers died during the case, leaving sons and daughters as legal heirs to continue the litigation.
• The High Court delivered its final order on 9 October 2025, bringing closure to a 44-year-old property conflict that began as a matter of family trust.

What the High Court Held

Justice Rohit W. Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant’s legal heirs and reaffirmed the lower court’s decision in favour of the plaintiff.

The Court made it clear that:

• Permission does not equal ownership. Even if someone builds a permanent house with the owner’s consent, it doesn’t make the licence irrevocable unless it’s proven that the construction was made acting upon the licence.
• No dual claim possible. One cannot simultaneously claim ownership by adverse possession and also argue for irrevocable licence protection.
• Licence ends with life. A licence is a personal right — it ends upon the death of the licensee unless expressly made permanent by agreement.
• No compensation claim. Since the construction was not proven to be made under licence, the defendant’s family wasn’t entitled to compensation under the Easements Act either.

Key Legal Provisions Explained

The Court relied on Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which says:

A licence becomes irrevocable only if the licensee, acting upon the licence, executes a work of permanent character and incurs expenses in doing so.

Justice Joshi emphasised that the phrase “acting upon the licence” is critical — simply living on or building with informal consent doesn’t qualify. There must be clear evidence that the construction was made based on the owner’s licence and with their formal permission.

Why This Matters for Homeowners and Families

The ruling has broader implications beyond this family dispute.

• For homeowners: If you allow relatives or friends to build on your land without formal terms, you retain ownership — but document the licence to avoid long-term disputes.
• For occupants: Building on someone else’s land does not create ownership rights, even after decades of possession, unless legally transferred.
• For lawyers and buyers: Always verify title and occupancy before purchase; unrecorded “permissions” can lead to costly litigation.

Bottom Line

This judgment reinforces that informal family permissions don’t create property rights.
Even permanent construction doesn’t make a licence irrevocable unless it’s proven that the work was done acting upon the owner’s licence — not under a mistaken belief of ownership.

For families, it’s a timely reminder to formalize such arrangements to prevent decades-long legal battles.

Also Read: Bombay HC: Maintenance Charges Must Match Your Flat Size

The post Building on a Relative’s Land? It Doesn’t Make You the Owner appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant clarification for homebuyers and legal practitioners, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint filed by a U.S.-based NRI homebuyer seeking interest on a refund, holding that the Authority cannot execute or re-hear cases already decided by consumer courts.

The case revolved around a refund claim in the registered project “DSK Anandghan” (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100005158), located in Pune’s Haveli taluka and developed by Saurabh, Pravin and Gaurav Tayal.

The complaint was filed by Anand Jitendra Vithalani, an NRI from the U.S., who sought directions from MahaRERA for repayment of interest on a previously refunded amount as ordered by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur.

NRI Buyer Approached Multiple Forums

The complainant had earlier approached the State Consumer Commission, which in 2019 ordered the builder to refund the amount with interest and compensation. While the principal amount was refunded, the buyer later approached MahaRERA in February 2024, demanding the interest component.

However, MahaRERA observed that since the same matter was already decided by the Consumer Commission — and even under execution before that body — filing a fresh complaint under RERA was not maintainable.

MahaRERA Cites Lack of Jurisdiction

The Authority, headed by Member Mahesh Pathak, noted that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, does not empower MahaRERA to execute or enforce orders issued by other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies like consumer courts.

“There is no explicit provision under RERA under which such reliefs as sought by the complainant can be granted,” the order stated. “The complainant has already adopted legal remedies before the Consumer Forum and cannot pursue the same cause before MahaRERA.”

MahaRERA also cited that the complainant had filed an Execution Application (No. EA/19/8) before the State Consumer Commission, which was still pending, making the RERA complaint parallel and non-maintainable.

Complaint Hit by ‘Res Judicata’

Adding further, MahaRERA recalled that an earlier complaint filed by the same buyer for similar relief was dismissed in 2019 for want of prosecution and never restored.

“The present complaint is hit by the doctrine of Res Judicata,” MahaRERA stated, meaning a matter once adjudicated cannot be pursued again between the same parties on the same issues.

Consequently, the Authority dismissed the latest applications for restoration, rectification, and remand, declaring them infructuous and beyond jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways for Homebuyers

This order serves as an important reminder for homebuyers — especially NRIs — to file and pursue cases before the appropriate legal forum.

MahaRERA’s role is limited to regulating developers and resolving disputes arising under RERA provisions. However, it does not have powers to enforce or execute orders passed by other tribunals, including consumer courts.

If a buyer has already obtained an order from a consumer forum, the execution must be sought before that same forum, not before MahaRERA.

Industry Impact

For developers, the ruling brings clarity and avoids duplication of proceedings across multiple forums. For homebuyers, it underscores the need to understand where to file, how to enforce, and when RERA can intervene.

As MahaRERA continues to streamline dispute redressal, such clarity will likely prevent overlapping litigation — saving time and legal costs for both parties.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Dismisses NRI Homebuyer’s Plea, Says It Cannot Enforce Consumer Court Orders appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute originated from an order issued by the Adjudicating Officer of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority on November 9, 2020, (read with the order dated October 10, 2020), which directed Altaa Construction to pay interest at an annual rate of 10.40% on an amount of Rs. 71,00,000/- to allottees Kokilaben Ajitbhai Dalal and Viral Ajit Dalal. Altaa Construction, as respondent number 3 in the original complaint proceedings, was held jointly and severally liable for interest from September 17, 2016, until possession was delivered or an occupation certificate obtained.

Altaa Construction’s subsequent appeal against these orders was dismissed on June 29, 2021, due to its failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirements under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016. A subsequent application for restoration of the appeal, filed on November 6, 2023, also met the same fate, being rejected on September 19, 2024, for continued non-compliance with the same section of the RERA Act.

Even after an intervention by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on December 10, 2024, which granted Altaa Construction three weeks to deposit the compliance amount, the developer only paid Rs. 18,75,540/-. Deeming this insufficient for full compliance, the Tribunal, on April 23, 2025, directed the developer to deposit the remaining Rs. 42,16,260/- within four weeks, a directive that was again ignored.

The current application (Misc. Application No. 468 of 2025) was filed by Altaa Construction after the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate froze their account on the directions in a non-compliance order dated August 11, 2022. The developer sought directions for the frozen amount to be deposited with the Tribunal and for permission to deposit the balance, or alternatively, to de-freeze the account for direct deposit to the Tribunal. Altaa Construction argued that the freezing of funds curtailed its ability to comply with statutory requirements and pursue its appeal.

However, the non-applicants argued that Altaa Construction had been given numerous opportunities to comply but consistently failed, noting the impugned order was passed in 2020 and no steps were taken for compliance till date. The Tribunal, comprising Chairperson S. S. Shinde J. and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande, concurred with the non-applicants, characterizing Altaa Construction’s conduct as a “dilatory strategy with malafide intentions” to obstruct the recovery of the ordered amount. The Tribunal highlighted that the allottees had been forced to pursue their rightful dues for nearly five years.

Given this history of non-compliance and the perceived intent to delay, the Tribunal found no merit in Altaa Construction’s application and rejected it , effectively upholding the freezing of the accounts for the benefit of the allottees.

Also Read: Builder Fined, Home Buyers Protected By MAhaRERA.

The post Developer’s Accounts Frozen for Failure to Pay Allottees, Tribunal Rejects Plea to Unfreeze appeared first on Square Feat India.