The dispute revolves around a ~4182.60 sq m plot (CTS No. 554/1) in Mulund East, Mumbai, comprising four old buildings (A, B, C, D). Chronologically, key events unfolded as follows:

• July 2, 2016: The society executed a Development Agreement with the developer for full redevelopment, promising new flats, corpus, transit rent, brokerage, transportation, and hardship compensation to members.
• September 13, 2017: Delayed application for Intimation of Disapproval (IOD), obtained only on September 3, 2019 — over three years after the original agreement.
• September 30, 2019: Supplementary Development Agreement signed to address time lapse and incorporate DCPR 2034 regulations.
• January 5, 2020: Possession of the site handed over to the developer; society members vacated their homes expecting timely completion.
• September 3, 2020: IOD re-validated; first Commencement Certificate (up to plinth level) obtained on January 27, 2021 — five years post-original agreement.
• Ongoing issues (2020–2025): Repeated plan changes, contractor switches, minimal progress (society claimed ~30% completion; developer disputed at 40–45%), non-loading of required TDR/FSI, and complete work stoppage by January 2025.
• Financial defaults: Arrears of ~₹9.77 crore in transit rent (escalating annually), brokerage, transportation, hardship compensation, and municipal taxes (~₹1.13 crore unpaid since 2023), exposing the society to attachment risks.
• February 23, 2025: Unanimous Special General Body Meeting resolution to terminate agreements due to multiple breaches.
• February 28, 2025: Termination Notice served.
• May 10, 2025: Arbitration invoked; Section 9 petition filed for interim relief.
• February 16, 2026: Judgment pronounced.

The court found the developer seriously in default on time and cost commitments, with members displaced for over five years facing unpaid dues and uncertainty. Justice Sundaresan described redevelopment agreements as a matter of “entrustment” of the society’s sole asset — its homes — and cited precedents like Rajawadi Arunodaya Co-operative Housing Society v. Value Projects Pvt Ltd. (2021) to emphasize that loss of faith due to breaches justifies termination. He rejected excuses like COVID-19 aftermath, pollution restrictions, and NGT orders as insufficient.

Critically, the judgment clarified that third-party flat purchasers (who entered agreements with the developer) buy at their own risk. Their rights derive from and are subordinate to the developer’s; no privity exists with the society, and they cannot bind the society post-termination (relying on Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. New D.N. Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, 2014).

The court highlighted the imbalance: real, immediate hardship to residents (survival via rent, separation from homes) versus the developer’s notional commercial risk. It rejected balancing arguments, noting developers invest for profit and assume project risks.

Key reliefs granted:

• Developer to hand over peaceful possession of the land and structures.
• Court Receiver (with police assistance if needed) to take possession and transfer the project to the society.
• Permanent injunction against the developer creating third-party rights or interfering in the society’s redevelopment (self or via new developer).
• Interim measures to continue until four weeks after Arbitral Tribunal constitution (society directed to file Section 11 application within eight weeks if needed).

This order empowers housing societies across Mumbai facing stalled redevelopments, signaling that courts will not tolerate prolonged defaults or attempts to renegotiate via dilutions (e.g., proposed slum rehab linkage). The final merits await arbitration, but the interim protection decisively favors the society.

Also Read: Victory for Small Shopkeepers in SRA Projects: Authority Fixes Reasonable Rate for Extra Area in Goregaon Slum Rehab

The post Bombay HC Strips Developer of Mulund Project, Society Wins Back Land appeared first on Square Feat India.

The joint submission, dated October 24, 2025, emphasizes updating outdated regulations, automating processes, and creating permanent mechanisms to avoid policy flip-flops. For the average Mumbaikar dreaming of owning a home, these changes promise quicker project completions, fairer premium structures, and fewer surprises in redevelopment timelines. The meeting was carried out after efforts of all four associations, of which Sukhraj Nahar, the President of CREDAI-MCHI took the lead.

Reviving and Updating the Ease of Doing Business Manual

The cornerstone demand is strict adherence to the 2015 Ease of Doing Business (EODB) Manual Version 1.0, which streamlined approvals but has fallen into disuse. The associations highlighted inconsistencies in scrutinizing building proposals despite repeated requests.

Key Suggestions:

• Process all proposals per the existing EODB Manual at zonal offices.
• Form a joint BMC-PEATA-NAREDCO-MCHI-BDA committee to revise the manual into Version 2.0 within 3-4 months, incorporating DCPR 2034 updates and digital systems.

This update could eliminate confusion for developers and architects, speeding up approvals and reducing project delays that often push up flat prices.

Steering Committee and Permanent Deferment Policy

To foster ongoing dialogue, the groups proposed a fortnightly steering committee chaired by the Municipal Commissioner, with signed minutes for actionable outcomes.

On premiums, they seek permanence for the 10:10:80 deferment policy (with 8% interest) and a lifecycle-based staggering of payments. Restrictions on Commencement Certificates (CC) under deferment should be removed.

Homebuyer Impact: Matching premium payments to project cash flows could prevent cost escalations, ensuring developers don’t pass burdens onto buyers.

Fire Safety, Tree NOC, and Policy Stability

Fire policies change reactively post-incidents, affecting ongoing projects. The associations want a 10-year forward-looking policy, conceptual approvals without upfront fees, and deferment applicability.

• CFO NOC: Auto-generate via AutoDCR after standardized terms.
• Tree NOC: Flat ₹10,000 fee per tree, planted via NGOs in Sanjay Gandhi National Park or ward RGs.
• 33(12)(B) Policy: Immediate clarification to continue existing SOP until new one is issued, protecting advanced PAP acquisitions.

Sudden scrapping rumors have stalled IODs; clarity here prevents financial losses rippling to redevelopment societies.

Cutting Red Tape in Fees and Approvals

Exorbitant charges like one-time pest control (OTC) for full building height during basements, or 10% annual scrutiny fee hikes, burden early-stage projects.

Proposals:

• Charge OTC once on built-up area, valid for 3-7 years.
• Scrutiny fees: Proportionate to residential/commercial areas; increase 2% yearly or every 5 years.
• Commercial premiums at residential rates, given similar sale prices.
• Extra sewerage charges (₹285/sq.m.): Pay at Building Proposal level with other fees.

Open space deficiency calculations should limit to affected rooms, not entire buildings.

Delegation, Self-Certification, and Digital Push

• Delegate concessions to Chief Engineer/zonal levels; shorten 4C reports.
• Self-certify plinth checking by architects (needs DCPR tweak).
• Ancillary structures (labor camps): Approve with main project, no 6-month revalidations.
• Issue IOA/CC under MR&TP Act only; extend CC validity to 3-5 years post-plinth.
• Remarks validity: Till project completion, not 1 year.
• Integrate all NOCs into AutoDCR for online tracking.

Ward-level issues (water connections, carriage entrances) should consolidate at Building Proposal stage.

Redevelopment Boosters

• 33(7)(B) Benefits: Grant based on 30-year building age proof, ignoring conveyance date/PRC.
• Unutilised FSI (DCR 1991): Allow balance potential under DCPR 2034 without extra TDR.
• Road Widening (<9m): Time-bound surveys and sanctions.
• RG in Open Spaces: Permit adjoining front/side/rear areas post-Supreme Court ruling.
• PAAA/CC Process: Follow 2015 EODB circular—no separate society consents if agreement exists.

Additional asks: Digitize old records, standardize remarks, shorten AutoDCR concession reports, incentive FSI on road setbacks, no hoarding charges for self-use, outsource AutoDCR to firms like TCS with AI, and crèche areas free of FSI.

A Win for Affordable Housing?

“These reforms will unleash real estate’s potential, funding BMC infrastructure while delivering homes faster and cheaper,” the associations stated. For homebuyers, especially in redevelopment hotspots, this could mean fewer stalled societies, predictable timelines, and relief from premium-driven price hikes. BMC’s response will be crucial—watch this space for updates.

Also Read: Need for Housing Stock Through PPP: BMC Commissioner

The post Developers of Four Associations Meet BMC Commissioner, Submit 34-Point Plan to Cut Delays, Lower Costs, and Speed Up Mumbai Homes appeared first on Square Feat India.