According to the Government Resolution (GR) dated 16 June 2026 issued by the Revenue and Forests Department (No. Land-2024/Pr.Kr.52/J-8), the scheme, which was originally launched on 15 May 2025, will now continue until 15 May 2027.

The scheme specifically benefits owners of residential and commercial properties built on government land in notified areas across Maharashtra (excluding Ulhasnagar in Thane district). It allows them to regularize breaches of lease conditions or unauthorized constructions and convert their limited rights into complete freehold ownership.

The extension comes after the government observed a huge response to the scheme, with numerous applications still pending processing. A Cabinet decision on 8 April 2025 had initially approved the scheme to resolve long-standing issues related to government land and provide clear ownership titles to citizens.

Key Highlights:

• One-year extension effective from 15 May 2026 to 15 May 2027.
• All other terms, conditions, and procedures of the original scheme remain the same.
• The implementation guidelines issued on 19 September 2025 continue to apply.
• The move is expected to help a large number of homebuyers and shop owners who were at risk of missing the earlier deadline.

This extension is viewed as a significant pro-homebuyer step by the state government, aimed at clearing long-pending regularization cases and granting secure property rights in notified areas.

The complete Government Resolution is available on the official Maharashtra Government portal (www.maharashtra.gov.in) with reference code 202606161653141319.

Also Read: Railways Floats Tender for 99-Year Lease of Mahalaxmi Railway Land Worth Nearly ₹1,000 Crore

The post Maharashtra Extends Amnesty Scheme: Get Freehold Rights on Properties by May 2027 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 case, involving sisters clashing over inherited agricultural land in Sangammer, Taluka Dindori, Nashik, underscores the importance of proving hostile intent to claim adverse possession. By rejecting unproven gift and possession claims, the ruling is set to enhance transparency in Maharashtra’s real estate market, potentially boosting land values by 5-10% in semi-urban areas.

The Dispute: A Family Clash Over Inherited Land

The case centers on a plot originally owned by Baban Gaikwad, Manjulabai’s husband, in Sangammer, Nashik. Key details include:

• Inheritance: Baban died issueless on January 13, 1971, leaving the land to Manjulabai, then 17, with her father managing it due to her minority.
• Mutation Dispute: Anjanabai, Manjulabai’s sister, got her name entered in the 7/12 extract via Mutation Entry No. 49 on December 7, 1971, claiming a gift. Manjulabai discovered this on March 26, 1984, and had it corrected by October 12, 1984 (Mutation Entry No. 182), restoring her name after the Tahsildar found no gift evidence.
• Legal Action: Manjulabai filed a suit on June 29, 1987, seeking possession and mesne profits, alleging Anjanabai’s unauthorized occupation. The trial and first appellate courts decreed possession and damages, rejecting Anjanabai’s claims of a gift or adverse possession.

What is Hostile Possession?

Hostile possession is a cornerstone of adverse possession, a legal principle allowing someone to claim land they don’t own by occupying it for 12 years (per Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963) with specific conditions. It involves occupying land in a way that openly challenges the true owner’s rights, showing clear intent (animus possidendi) to claim it as one’s own. The Bombay High Court, citing Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004), outlined its requirements:

• Open and Public (Nec Clam): Possession must be visible, like farming or building, so the owner could notice.
• Hostile Intent: The occupant must deny the owner’s title, treating the land as theirs without permission. For example, cultivating land and paying taxes in their name, knowing it belongs to someone else.
• Continuous (Nec Precario): Uninterrupted possession for 12+ years, without the owner reclaiming it.
• Exclusive: The occupant controls the land solely, excluding others.
• Peaceful (Nec Vi): Possession starts without force, though disputes may arise later.

If the occupant has the owner’s permission (e.g., as a tenant or via a claimed gift), possession isn’t hostile, and the 12-year clock doesn’t start. In this case, Anjanabai’s claim of a gift implied permissive possession, negating hostility.

Defendant’s Failed Claims: Gift and Adverse Possession

Anjanabai argued she owned the land via:

• Gift Claim: She alleged Manjulabai gifted it in 1971, supported by Mutation Entry No. 49, and she had cultivated it, investing heavily.
• Adverse Possession: Alternatively, she claimed title through continuous possession since 1971, arguing the 1987 suit was time-barred.

The courts rejected both:

• No Gift: Anjanabai produced no gift deed. The Tahsildar’s 1984 order, upheld on appeal, canceled Mutation Entry No. 49 for lack of Manjulabai’s consent.
• No Hostile Possession: Her gift claim suggested permissive possession, contradicting the hostile intent needed for adverse possession (Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, 2024). Without proving hostility, her possession was deemed trespassory.

Court’s Verdict: Suit Within Limitation

The second appeal, admitted on April 22, 1994, focused on whether the suit was barred under Article 65. The court ruled:

• Limitation Trigger: The 12-year limitation starts when possession becomes adverse. Manjulabai’s knowledge of Anjanabai’s claim on March 26, 1984, made the 1987 suit timely (Saroop Singh v. Banto, 2005).
• Trespasser Status: Without hostile intent, Anjanabai was a trespasser, and owners can reclaim land anytime absent 12 years of adverse possession (Prem Nath Khanna v. Narinder Nath Kapoor, 2016).
• Precedents: Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019) clarified that long possession isn’t adverse unless openly hostile, with the burden on the claimant to prove all elements.

Real Estate Impact: Strengthening Title Clarity

This ruling significantly impacts Maharashtra’s real estate, especially in rural areas like Nashik, where family disputes and outdated records fuel litigation:

• Title Verification Demand: The emphasis on legal title over mutation entries could increase title search services by 10-15%, costing ₹5,000-10,000 per property, per local agents.
• Dispute Resolution: With over 20,000 mutation disputes pending, the ruling may resolve 30-40% by prioritizing documented titles.
• Land Value Boost: Clearer titles could raise Sangammer-Dindori land prices by 5-10%, attracting developers for residential and agricultural projects, with a ₹500 crore market impact by 2027.

The decision supports India’s push for transparent land records, potentially impacting ₹5,000 crore in annual rural real estate transactions by reducing title disputes.

Also Read: Bombay HC GST Relief Verdict Could Unlock Rs. 30,000 Cr Redevelopment Potential in Mumbai

The post Unauthorized Occupants Cannot Claim Ownership Of Land Simply By Occupying It For Years: Bombay HC appeared first on Square Feat India.

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S. Chavan, in a judgment dated 22 September 2025, set aside the 2010 vesting order passed under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the 2024 rejection order by the Ministry of Home Affairs, in the case of Lotus Classique Housing Society vs Union of India.

Timeline of Events

1944–1971: Legitimate Ownership & Development

• Land at Vidyanagar, Margao (Survey No. 157/4) was purchased in 1944.
• In 1969, the property was transferred by gift deeds to Badruddin Hussenbhai Mavani, who was born in Goa in 1923.
• He executed powers of attorney in 1970 and 1971 in Goa, authorising subdivision and sale.
• Town planning approvals followed, and between 1977 and 1981, multiple registered sale deeds were executed for the subdivided plots.

1997–2010: CEPI Steps In Based on Local Complaints

• In 1997, CEPI issued notices under Section 11 of the Enemy Property Act after receiving a local complaint claiming Mavani had migrated to Pakistan.
• On 8 October 2010, CEPI declared the property as “enemy property” under Sections 5 and 24, relying on old letters and hearsay — not official records.

2020–2024: Owners Fight Back

• The housing society filed a representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs in September 2020, attaching birth certificates, sale deeds, and development records proving ownership.
• On 12 November 2024, the Ministry rejected the representation, citing the 2017 Amendment and Validation Act, which retrospectively nullifies transfers of enemy property.

2025: High Court Strikes Down the Orders

• The Court found no documentary proof that Badruddin Mavani was a Pakistani national between 11 September 1965 and 18 December 1971 — the critical vesting window under the Defence of India Rules.
• Local reports and vague references to a case in Pakistan were deemed insufficient.
• The bench held that without establishing enemy nationality, the Custodian had no jurisdiction to vest the property.
• The Court also noted violations of natural justice, as the 2010 order was passed without giving current owners a fair hearing.

Why This Ruling Matters

1. Burden of Proof on Govt:
   The State must prove enemy status with credible records — not hearsay or complaints.
2. 2017 Amendment Not a Blanket Shield:
   The Court clarified that the Amendment doesn’t fix a jurisdictionally defective vesting. If the original declaration is flawed, it can be struck down even today.
3. Ripple Effect:
   Many properties across Goa, Mumbai, and other states were declared “enemy properties” decades ago using vague reports. This judgment gives affected owners a clear legal path to challenge such declarations.
4. Real Estate Clarity:
   For homebuyers and societies living under CEPI claims, this judgment restores ownership certainty and could trigger re-examination of archival CEPI lists.

The Court’s Stand

“Merely on an assumption that the holder of this property had migrated to Pakistan and just because there is a citation in the law report in his name, is not a proof that Badruddin was a Pakistani National… it cannot form the basis of declaration of the subject property as Enemy Property.” — Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Rules in Favor of Adani, Rejects UAE Firm’s Plea

The post 📰 Hearsay Can’t Make You Pakistani: Bombay HC Quashes Enemy Property Tag appeared first on Square Feat India.