An analysis of 11 major housing markets between 2019 and Q2 2026 shows that rising property prices have not necessarily resulted in lower rental returns. Instead, rental yields have improved alongside capital values in most of the markets analysed.

According to ANAROCK, Noida and Gurugram recorded the highest capital appreciation during the period, while Bengaluru and Hyderabad registered the sharpest improvement in rental yields.

Anuj Puri, Chairman, ANAROCK Group, said the traditional relationship between rising capital values and declining rental yields is changing as rental growth in several major markets has been strong enough to offset the impact of property price appreciation.

Noida, Gurugram lead capital appreciation

Noida recorded the highest capital appreciation among the 11 markets analysed. Average capital prices increased from ₹4,795 per sq. ft. in 2019 to ₹10,780 per sq. ft. in Q2 2026, representing a 125% increase.

At the same time, rental yields in Noida increased from 3.2% to 3.9%, a rise of 70 basis points.

Gurugram followed with a 117% increase in capital values. Average prices rose from ₹6,150 per sq. ft. in 2019 to ₹13,350 per sq. ft. in Q2 2026. Rental yields also increased from 3.5% to 4.3%, gaining 80 basis points.

The data indicates that NCR markets have benefited from both substantial capital value appreciation and improving rental economics.

Bengaluru and Hyderabad see 100-basis-point yield gains

Bengaluru and Hyderabad recorded the strongest improvement in rental yields among the markets analysed, with both cities registering a 100-basis-point increase between 2019 and Q2 2026.

In Bengaluru, average capital prices rose 90%, from ₹4,975 per sq. ft. in 2019 to ₹9,450 per sq. ft. in Q2 2026.

Rental yields increased from 3.6% to 4.6%, making Bengaluru the highest-yielding market among the cities covered in the ANAROCK analysis.

Hyderabad also recorded strong capital appreciation, with average prices rising from ₹4,195 per sq. ft. to ₹8,090 per sq. ft., representing a 93% increase.

Rental yields in Hyderabad increased from 2.6% to 3.6%, also gaining 100 basis points.

ANAROCK attributed the performance of these markets to their strong employment ecosystems, technology-driven economic growth and the expansion of Global Capability Centres (GCCs), which have supported both ownership and rental housing demand.

Mumbai prices rise 64%, rental yield gains 80 bps

Mumbai recorded 64% capital appreciation between 2019 and Q2 2026, with average capital values increasing from ₹17,845 per sq. ft. to ₹29,270 per sq. ft.

Rental yields in the city increased from 3.5% to 4.3%, representing an 80-basis-point improvement.

Delhi recorded a comparatively lower 47% increase in capital values, from ₹18,200 per sq. ft. in 2019 to ₹26,700 per sq. ft. in Q2 2026.

However, rental yields in Delhi improved by 100 basis points, rising from 2.2% to 3.2%.

ANAROCK said the performance of Mumbai and Delhi reflects the gradual improvement in rental economics in mature residential markets.

Navi Mumbai and Thane also see strong growth

Navi Mumbai recorded 71% capital appreciation during the period, with rental yields improving by 80 basis points.

Thane saw capital values increase by 63%, while rental yields also rose 80 basis points.

Pune recorded 51% growth in capital values, from ₹5,510 per sq. ft. in 2019 to ₹8,300 per sq. ft. in Q2 2026. Rental yields increased by 65 basis points, from 3.3% to 3.95%.

Chennai and Kolkata registered relatively more moderate growth compared with the other major housing markets.

Chennai’s capital values increased 47%, from ₹4,935 per sq. ft. to ₹7,250 per sq. ft., while rental yields improved by 55 basis points.

Kolkata recorded 45% capital appreciation, with prices increasing from ₹4,385 per sq. ft. to ₹6,345 per sq. ft. Rental yields rose by 60 basis points.

Infrastructure, jobs and migration support housing demand

ANAROCK said the dual-return proposition in residential real estate is being supported by several structural factors, including infrastructure development, expansion of employment hubs, GCC growth and sustained migration into India’s major cities.

Improved connectivity has also expanded the geography of employment centres and benefited a wider range of residential markets.

The underlying cycle is straightforward: economic growth creates employment, employment attracts migration, migration supports rental demand, and sustained housing demand supports capital appreciation.

Anuj Puri said this combination is creating a more favourable proposition for residential investors, particularly at a time when capital values have risen substantially across leading Indian housing markets.

Capital price and rental yield movement

Also Read: India Home Sales Rise 3% in H1 2026 as Housing Market Remains Resilient

The post Mumbai, Navi Mumbai & Thane See Up to 71% Property Price Growth Since 2019 appeared first on Square Feat India.

The development, planned around Siddheshwar Lake, is envisioned as an integrated, globally benchmarked ecosystem that will combine premium commercial spaces, connectivity, landscape and urban infrastructure. The project will mark Sugee Group’s commercial debut in Thane.

The developer plans to position the project as a Grade A+ commercial destination catering to the growing requirements of MSMEs, multinational corporations and expanding enterprises. The development is aimed at businesses seeking premium and professionally planned workspaces without the high entry barriers associated with Mumbai’s commercial real estate market.

Sugee Group said the project will seek to strengthen Thane’s emergence as a major business destination, with the company positioning the city as “New India’s City of Economic Growth – Thane is N.I.C.E.”

The project is expected to benefit from Thane’s expanding infrastructure network. Sugee highlighted upcoming metro connectivity, including Maharashtra’s first ring metro, the Thane-Borivali twin tunnels, the Thane coastal road, planned waterways and ports, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail corridor and connectivity to the airport as key factors supporting the city’s growth.

The 50+ acre development will be anchored by Siddheshwar Lake in Thane West. According to Sugee, the lake will form an integral part of the project’s planning and identity, with the development designed to bring together urban infrastructure and the surrounding natural landscape.

The architectural vision for the project is being developed under the guidance of architect Hafeez Contractor, who has been awarded the Padma Bhushan. The project draws inspiration from international business districts such as Canary Wharf in London and Hudson Yards in New York, where commercial spaces are planned as integrated ecosystems combining offices, infrastructure, connectivity and public realm.

Nishant Deshmukh, Founder and Managing Partner, Sugee Group, said Thane’s residential growth is now being accompanied by the emergence of a stronger commercial ecosystem. He said the company’s objective is to introduce premium commercial spaces that can support the city’s next phase of economic growth.

Hafeez Contractor said Siddheshwar Lake provides the project with a natural anchor and that the design is intended to integrate the waterfront into the identity and experience of the district. The vision, he said, is to create a commercial destination where connectivity, landscape and built form work together.

Sugee Group’s entry comes as Thane undergoes significant infrastructure-led transformation. The company believes the combination of improving connectivity, expanding business activity and rising demand for quality commercial spaces could create opportunities for the city’s next phase of development.

The proposed project is also intended to evolve beyond a conventional commercial development. Sugee said its larger vision is to create an integrated, globally benchmarked mixed-use ecosystem that can contribute to Thane’s long-term urban and economic growth.

Sugee Group currently has more than 50 million sq. ft. of completed and ongoing developments and a portfolio of over 60 projects across India and international markets, including the UAE and Portugal. The company has received more than 28 industry awards and has a workforce of over 400 employees.

With its Thane entry, Sugee is seeking to leverage its experience across the real estate development lifecycle to establish a new commercial destination in the city. The company said the project is intended to address current business requirements while contributing to Thane’s broader transformation into a major economic and commercial hub.

Also Read: Sugee Group Marks Successful Completion of homes promised before its scheduled time to 160+ Families at ‘Sugee Atharva’

The post Sugee Group Enters Thane with 50+ Acre Waterfront Commercial Development appeared first on Square Feat India.

The CASA FRESCO A to E Co-operative Housing Society, representing flat purchasers in Lodha Amara (Towers 1-5, 7-19), had complained that the developer Macrotech Developers Ltd (formerly Lodha Developers) deviated from the sanctioned plans by skipping the 13th floor. This resulted in a mismatch between actual physical floors and the numbering used in agreements, possession letters, and addresses.

According to the society, when property tax bills were issued by Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) for 2020-21, flat owners on what is physically the 13th floor received bills showing it as 1301, while Lodha-numbered flats on the same floor were treated as 1401. This discrepancy affected 394 members and created serious difficulties in property tax payments, registrations, and official documentation.

Builder’s Defence: Macrotech Developers submitted that skipping the 13th floor is a “common industry practice” because the number is widely considered inauspicious. They argued that the 13th floor physically exists as per structural and approved plans, but it is simply labelled as the 14th floor in the building’s numbering scheme. The developer pointed to the TMC bills themselves, which mention both physical and nomenclated numbers, to claim there is no real confusion.

MahaRERA’s Observation: Member Ravindra Deshpande, while rejecting the complaint, made critical remarks on this issue. The Authority noted that it is an accepted industry practice but criticised the builder, stating that once the sanctioned plan showed the 13th floor, the developer should have either avoided constructing it or properly accounted for the numbering from the planning stage. However, since the project is already completed and OC granted, no specific relief was granted on this point. The Authority clarified that if any individual member faces future problems due to this renumbering, the promoter will be responsible to rectify it.

The complaint was ultimately dismissed in its entirety on 29 June 2026.

Other Major Reliefs Sought by the Society & Order Highlights

The society had demanded several other reliefs, including:

• Permanent car parking spaces in the MLCP as per Occupancy Certificate.
• Damages of ₹2.5 crore for parking delay and ₹5 lakh for two-wheeler parking issues.
• Provision of multiple promised amenities (Tennis courts, Cricket field, playgrounds, pools, club house, sports facilities, etc.) or ₹10 crore compensation.
• Premium brand lifts + stretcher lift or heavy compensation.
• Water connection from TMC lines.
• Execution of conveyance deed + damages.
• Refunds of excess charges (BCAM, FCAM, electricity, club usage, etc.).
• Rectification of defects and poor workmanship.

Builder’s Stand: The developer strongly opposed the complaint citing res judicata (the issues were already raised in a 2019 complaint), waiver by homebuyers in possession letters, and a joint architect inspection report (2024) confirming most amenities were provided. They argued many issues were outside RERA jurisdiction or already resolved.

Also Read: Buyer Ghosts Builder After Paying ₹49k: MahaRERA Orders Agreement Cancellation

The post Builder Sells 13th Floor Flats as 14th Calling 13 Inauspicious, Homebuyers Move MahaRERA appeared first on Square Feat India.

In Regulatory Case No. 447 of 2025, MahaRERA allowed the deregistration of the project “Prithvi Sneh” (MahaRERA Reg. No. P51700006513) located at Ghodbunder, Mira Bhayandar, Thane. The promoter, Prithvi Buildworth Construction, had sought deregistration after the Development Agreement with the landowner (M/s. Jai Laxmi Constructions) was mutually cancelled in August 2024.

The promoter argued that it no longer held development rights over the land and that there were no allottees in the “Prithvi Sneh” building. It also claimed that the complaints filed in the project actually pertained to another building “Sneh Crown” being developed by the landowner. After verifying that no objections were received from the public and noting the cancellation of the development agreement, MahaRERA permitted the deregistration.

However, the Authority made it crystal clear that deregistration is not a clean chit.

Member Mahesh Pathak categorically stated that the deregistration shall not absolve the promoter from complying with the earlier orders passed by MahaRERA, including the final order dated 25th August 2020, interim order dated 11th February 2021, and the non-compliance order dated 6th January 2023. The order explicitly mentions that the validity, enforceability, and execution of these earlier orders will remain unaffected despite the deregistration.

This order sends a strong message to promoters that exiting the RERA registration system will not help them evade accountability for past violations. Homebuyers and complainants can still pursue remedies based on previous RERA directions, including recovery of penalties or refunds, if applicable.

The case also highlights the complex structure of some projects where multiple parties (promoters and landowners) are involved, often leading to disputes over liabilities. MahaRERA has maintained that while it may allow deregistration in deserving cases where the promoter has genuinely lost development rights, it will not permit such moves to defeat the rights of allottees or nullify its own earlier enforceable orders.

This ruling assumes importance for homebuyers stuck in stalled or disputed projects across Maharashtra, reaffirming that RERA’s protective measures continue even after a project’s registration is cancelled.

Also Read: MahaRERA Allows Parking in Adjacent Building of Same Layout

The post RERA Deregistration Does Not Absolve Builder of Past Liabilities: MahaRERA appeared first on Square Feat India.

Pan-India, the GCC CPRI stood at 165.3 (base Q1 CY’14 = 100), slipping 0.5% quarter-on-quarter and 5.8% year-on-year, though it still posted a modest 0.9% three-year CAGR. In contrast, the all-occupier CPRI rose to 165.0, gaining 1.1% QoQ and 2.9% YoY with a stronger 4.8% three-year CAGR. The narrowing spread indicates that GCC-specific demand, while still robust in select hubs, is no longer the sole engine of rental growth; wider occupier interest is now supporting the market.

Hyderabad emerged as India’s strongest GCC rental market with a CPRI of 212.1, up 5.4% YoY and 4.4% over three years. The city also recorded the widest GCC premium — GCCs paid 15% above market rents and 10% above passing rents. Hitec City remained the standout micro-market, driving consistent appreciation and attracting large-format leases, including Novartis Healthcare’s 8.66 lakh sq ft commitment and Qualcomm’s 3.89 lakh sq ft deal in Madhapur.

Pune followed closely with a GCC CPRI of 210.7, maintaining a high base after strong prior compounding. It posted the widest GCC-to-rental premium among major cities at +16.3% (210.7 vs 181.2 all-occupier CPRI). The market has entered a consolidation phase after rapid growth, with rents now plateauing but still showing a healthy 20% premium over non-GCC rentals. North-East Pune anchored leasing activity, supported by long-tenure deals such as Maersk’s 1.93 lakh sq ft and UBS’s 1.43 lakh sq ft commitments.

Bengaluru, India’s largest GCC market by occupied stock (57% GCC share), recorded a CPRI of 190.0. Growth has slowed to +1.6% over three years, yet the city continues to command significant premiums, with GCC market rents notably higher than non-GCC levels. Whitefield (286.9) and South Bengaluru (257.9) led micro-market performance, while Outer Ring Road remained the volume driver despite some large-block transactions moderating average rental growth.

In the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, the story was one of convergence and selective strength. Mumbai’s GCC CPRI reached 149.0, nearly matching the broader CPRI at 144.7 — the tightest positive spread among premium cities. This suggests GCC pricing has effectively become the market benchmark rather than a premium paid to access it. Central Suburbs posted a strong GCC CPRI of 217.0 with robust three-year growth, while Navi Mumbai (170.7) and Thane (182.3) delivered healthy YoY gains of 6.3% and 6.5% respectively, pointing to rising GCC interest in MMR’s suburban corridors.

At the other end, Chennai’s GCC CPRI fell sharply to 80.6 (-37.1% YoY), while Gurgaon and Noida also recorded deep corrections. These declines reflect new GCC leases being signed at rates materially below levels seen one to three years ago, a clear reversal of earlier momentum.

The report underscores that GCCs continue to favour quality assets with larger deal sizes, longer tenures (often 60–120 months), and sharper specifications. They remain key anchors for macro-markets such as Whitefield, Hitec City, Central Mumbai suburbs, and North-East Pune. However, the pan-India cooling in GCC rents alongside rising broader-market rents points to a maturing, more balanced commercial office landscape where location quality and infrastructure readiness matter more than ever.

For developers and investors, the findings highlight clear opportunities in GCC-ready Grade A/A+ projects in Hyderabad, Pune, and select Bengaluru and Mumbai micro-markets, even as aggregate growth moderates.

Also Read: GCC Policy Impact on Residential Real Estate in Bengaluru

The post Hyderabad Leads GCC Office Rental Index at 212.1; Pune Close at 210.7 in Q1 2026 appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Purchase

The registered sale agreement, dated 4 April 2012, recorded the total consideration for the flat at ₹72 lakh. Katkade filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring an income of ₹2,71,280. The IT Department processed the return and accepted it without objection. For Katkade, the matter was closed.

The Raid He Knew Nothing About

On 24 September 2014 — more than two years after Katkade had taken possession of his flat — the IT Department’s investigation wing conducted a search and seizure operation at the offices of Cosmos Group, the builder. Cosmos Group was engaged in real estate development and construction across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

During the raid, investigators claimed to have found Excel sheets containing flatwise and shopwise cash payment records, emails in the builder’s Gmail and Yahoo accounts, and what they described as a cash book of on-money received from buyers. Two key persons were questioned — Karuna Khambayat, the Sales Head of Cosmos Group, who made a general admission that cash payments were often involved in the sale of flats and shops, and Suraj Parmar, son of promoter Ramesh Parmar, who spoke about cash transactions in the business.

Flat No. 802 — Katkade’s flat — appeared in those Excel sheets with cash figures against it.

Katkade was not present during the raid. He was not questioned. No one from the IT Department contacted him. He had no knowledge that a file bearing his flat number now existed inside the investigation wing.

Five Years of Silence, Then a Bombshell

For nearly five years after the raid, nothing happened. Then, on 29 March 2019 — seven years after the original flat purchase and five years after the Cosmos Group raid — Katkade received a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The IT Department was reopening his already-closed assessment for AY 2012-13.

The basis was information passed by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1(4), Mumbai. The Assessing Officer (AO) had obtained prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT-2), Thane. The allegation was stark — that Katkade had paid ₹34.5 lakh in cash over and above the registered agreement value, split as ₹28.5 lakh in AY 2012-13 and ₹6 lakh in AY 2013-14. Since Katkade held a 50% share in the flat, the AO proposed to add ₹14.25 lakh — 50% of ₹28.5 lakh — to his income for AY 2012-13 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

The Letter the IT Department Refused to Believe

Katkade fought back. He filed a fresh return in response to the notice, denied paying any on-money, and asked the AO to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer for an independent valuation. The AO rejected that request, saying the case did not pertain to flat valuation.

When the AO issued a show cause notice asking Katkade to explain why ₹14.25 lakh should not be added to his income, Katkade did something significant. He went back to Cosmos Group and obtained a written confirmation letter from the builder stating that the total amount received from Katkade and his wife for Flat No. 802 was ₹72 lakh — nothing more, nothing less. The very builder whose internal records the IT Department was relying upon to allege cash payment was now confirming in writing that no such additional payment existed.

The AO dismissed the letter entirely and made the addition anyway, relying instead on the Excel sheet from the raid and the statements of Suraj Parmar and Karuna Khambayat.

There was one more problem — the actual incriminating documents, the Excel sheets, the emails, the cash book, were never shown to Katkade at any stage of the assessment. He was being taxed on the basis of evidence he had never seen.

Appeal Rejected, Fight Continues

Katkade appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) — CIT(A) — at Panaji. He raised three arguments: that the reopening of the assessment after seven years was itself legally invalid; that the addition was baseless since no evidence had ever been produced before him; and that he had been denied the right to cross-examine Karuna Khambayat and Suraj Parmar, whose statements were being used against him.

The CIT(A) rejected all three. On the cross-examination request — a right firmly established by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE — the CIT(A) gave a puzzling response, holding that the addition was not based only on the incriminating material and therefore cross-examination was not required. The order was passed on 26 September 2025.

ITAT: The Addition Was Never Sustainable

Katkade’s chartered accountant, Subodh Ratnaparkhi, filed an appeal before the ITAT Mumbai in November 2025. The case came up for hearing on 18 March 2026 before a two-member bench of Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar.

Before the Tribunal, Ratnaparkhi placed on record five previous ITAT orders where identical additions had been made against other Cosmos Group flat buyers — and deleted in every single case. The buyers included Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Mamta Sharad Gupta, and Monika Anand Gupta. In each case, the basis was the same Excel sheet, the same statement of Suraj Parmar, and the same methodology. In each case, the Tribunal had ruled against the IT Department.

The Revenue’s Senior Departmental Representative, Usha Gaikwad, supported the lower authorities and argued that the statements and seized material were sufficient basis for the addition.

The Tribunal was unconvinced. In its order pronounced on 4 June 2026, the bench held that the addition was based solely on third-party statements, which cannot be used as evidence against a buyer without cross-examination. It further held that the Excel sheet was inadmissible as electronic evidence since it had not been authenticated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The actual seized documents — the emails and cash books — had never been brought on record before any authority at any stage. The builder’s own confirmation letter confirming ₹72 lakh had been ignored without any valid reason. Following five coordinate bench decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal deleted the addition entirely.

Since Katkade had won on merit, the bench did not even find it necessary to rule on whether the 2019 reopening was legally valid in the first place.

What This Means for Homebuyers

The Katkade case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern. The ITAT has now deleted on-money additions linked to Cosmos Group in at least six cases, consistently finding that the Excel sheets seized during the 2014 raid are inadmissible, that general admissions by builder insiders cannot be attributed to specific buyers without corroboration, and that denying buyers the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against them is a violation of natural justice.

For homebuyers across India, the case carries a broader warning. A builder raid can trigger tax demands against buyers years or even decades after a purchase. The IT Department can reopen assessments using information from someone else’s search. And the buyer — who had no part in that raid, never saw those documents, and may have paid every rupee above board — can find themselves fighting a tax addition based entirely on a figure in someone else’s spreadsheet.

The only protection is documentation. A registered agreement, a complete payment trail through banking channels, and written confirmations from the builder at the time of purchase are a homebuyer’s best defence if the taxman comes knocking years later.

For Katkade, that defence ultimately worked — but it took fourteen years, two appeals, and a Tribunal order to prove it.

The order is dated June 4, 2026.

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Clears Real Estate Developer of Fraud Allegations, Allows ₹1.79 Crore Tax Deduction

The post Builder Confirmed No Cash, IT Department Didn’t Believe Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in the high-profile case involving Thane-based homebuyers Meghana and Abhishek Lakhotia against Deep Homes & Constructions LLP, the developer of the “Auralis – The Twins” project in Thane.

What Compensation Do Homebuyers Lose?

According to the Tribunal, claims for mental harassment compensation and rent reimbursement fall under the broader head of “compensation” under Section 18 of the RERA Act. These additional reliefs are available primarily when a homebuyer chooses to withdraw from the project and seeks a full refund of the amount paid.

Once the buyer accepts possession — even if it is delayed — the only remedy that survives is interest on the money paid for the period of delay. Separate claims for rent paid elsewhere or mental agony are not entertained in addition to interest.

The Case in Detail

Meghana and Abhishek Lakhotia had booked flat No. 1601 (16th floor, Tower-1) in the promoter’s project “Auralis – The Twins” (RERA Registration No. P51700009177). They executed a registered Agreement for Sale on 31 January 2019 for a total consideration of ₹1.36 crore, with the promoter promising possession on or before 31 March 2019.

Despite paying nearly the entire amount (₹1.30 crore as admitted by the promoter), the Lakhotias received only “fit-out possession” on 25 March 2021 — without an Occupation Certificate (OC). The promoter obtained the OC on 14 June 2021 and formally offered possession with the OC on the same day.

Aggrieved by the delay of more than two years, the couple filed a complaint before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in August 2021. They demanded:

• Interest on the amount paid from 1 April 2019 till actual possession with OC,
• ₹3 lakh as compensation for mental harassment,
• ₹7.70 lakh towards rent paid by them during the delay,
• Refund of excess GST, and
• Proper documents and parking space.

The promoter opposed the complaint, citing various delays beyond its control (environmental clearances, FSI issues, MMRDA approvals, and later the Covid-19 pandemic) and claimed some payments were still outstanding.

Chronology of Events

• 31 January 2019: Agreement for Sale executed; possession promised by 31 March 2019.
• 31 March 2019: Promised possession date lapses.
• 25 March 2021: Promoter hands over fit-out possession without Occupation Certificate.
• 14 June 2021: Promoter receives Occupation Certificate and offers formal possession.
• 10 August 2021: Lakhotias file complaint before MahaRERA (after taking possession).
• 27 May 2022: MahaRERA directs promoter to pay delay interest till fit-out possession date and grants moratorium benefit to the promoter.
• 2022: Both sides file cross-appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
• 25 March 2026: Appeals reserved for judgment.
• 2 April 2026: Tribunal pronounces final order.

Tribunal’s Ruling (2 April 2026)

In a detailed judgment authored by Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande (with Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde concurring), the Appellate Tribunal:

• Dismissed the promoter’s appeal.
• Partly allowed the homebuyers’ appeal.
• Held that giving possession without an Occupation Certificate does not amount to legal possession under RERA. Therefore, interest must run till 14 June 2021 (date of OC).
• Directed the promoter to pay interest on ₹1,30,50,167 at SBI’s highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2% from 1 April 2019 to 14 June 2021, payable within 30 days.
• Rejected the promoter’s claim for Covid-19 moratorium benefit, as the original possession date (March 2019) was well before the pandemic.
• Explicitly rejected claims for mental harassment compensation and rent reimbursement, observing that such reliefs are available only when the allottee withdraws from the project.

Both parties have been directed to bear their own costs.

Significance of the Order

The judgment reinforces a consistent principle followed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal: once a homebuyer accepts the apartment, the dispute shifts from “refund + compensation” to “interest only”. It serves as an important reminder for delayed-project buyers — accepting possession limits their financial remedies to statutory interest, however long the delay may have been.

Also Read: Homebuyers Come Before Banks: MahaRERA Pulls Bank For Ignoring Homebuyers While Lending Money to Builder

The post Homebuyers Lose Right to Compensation & Rent Refund Once They Accept Delayed Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.

Strategic Bet on a High-Growth Micro-Market

The site lies within an established Thane micro-market known for strong social infrastructure and connectivity. The upcoming development will be primarily residential and designed as an integrated township-style project, leveraging the scale of the land parcel.

The location is expected to benefit significantly from major infrastructure projects, including:

• The Thane–Wadala Metro line
• The proposed Thane–Borivali twin-tube tunnel
• The Thane Coastal Road
• The Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor (planned Thane station)

These infrastructure upgrades are projected to reduce commute times and improve access to business hubs across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, boosting property demand and livability.

Thane’s Rising Appeal Among Homebuyers

Thane has steadily transformed from a peripheral suburb into a self-sufficient residential hub, supported by:

• Established residential communities
• Reputed schools and hospitals
• Retail malls and entertainment zones
• Expanding employment catchments

This combination of infrastructure, lifestyle amenities, and connectivity has made the city a preferred destination for both end-users and investors seeking value compared to central Mumbai.

Company’s Growth Strategy Focused on Key Corridors

According to Gaurav Pandey, Managing Director & CEO of Godrej Properties, expanding in high-potential micro-markets is central to the company’s long-term strategy. He emphasized that Thane’s mix of open spaces, urban amenities, and connectivity makes it one of the most attractive real estate destinations in the region.

This marks the developer’s fourth project in Thane, reinforcing its commitment to scaling presence in high-demand corridors across India’s major cities.

Why This Project Matters for the Market

Industry observers say projects of this size often act as catalysts for local real estate ecosystems. Large integrated developments can:

• Set new pricing benchmarks
• Attract retail and commercial investments
• Improve infrastructure demand
• Increase land valuations in surrounding areas

Given the project’s scale and timing, it could play a key role in shaping Thane’s next phase of urban growth.

Also Read: Godrej Properties Acquires 8.5-Acre Land Parcel in Mahalunge, Pune for ₹2,000-Crore Housing Project

The post Godrej Properties Bets Big on Thane: ₹7,500 Cr Mega Housing Project Announced appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background: Land Given for Cultivation

The land in question—approximately 210 acres of forest land in Ambernath (Thane district)—was allotted between 1961 and 1963 by the State government to the Ambernath Sahakari Samudayik Shetki Society. The allotment was made free of cost, under a clear condition that the land would be used only for collective farming, and where cultivation was not possible, for tree plantation.

The government had expressly retained the right to resume the land if these conditions were violated.

What the Government Found

Over the decades, inspections by the Revenue Department revealed that:

• Only 7–19 acres were used for tree plantation
• No meaningful agricultural activity was carried out on the remaining land
• The society sub-divided the land among its members, contrary to the allotment terms
• Large portions were used for unauthorised houses, chawls, shops, poultry sheds and other constructions
• Around 400–500 illegal occupants were found on the land
• Original farmer members were sidelined, while non-agriculturists were inducted

By 2011, the State had already taken physical possession of around 194 acres after issuing repeated show-cause notices.

Society’s Argument Before the Court

The cooperative society challenged the government action, arguing that:

• The land was rocky, uneven and partially unsuitable for farming
• Tree plantation had been carried out where cultivation was not possible
• Some earlier court observations acknowledged limited agricultural activity
• Resuming the entire land was disproportionate

High Court’s Clear Finding

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the society’s appeal, holding that:

• The land was granted as government largesse, not a private right
• The primary condition of agricultural use was blatantly violated
• Allowing illegal constructions and encroachments amounted to complete misuse
• Long possession or partial plantation cannot legalise unauthorised use
• The land is now located in the heart of Ambernath city, making its misuse even more serious

The Court noted that even at present, no crops are grown on the land, and the society showed no genuine intent to comply with the allotment purpose.

Why the Government Was Right

The High Court emphasised that public land cannot be allowed to remain under illegal occupation, especially when:

• It was allotted for a specific public-oriented purpose
• The beneficiary violated every material condition
• The land is required for public utilities such as hospitals and medical infrastructure

Accordingly, the Court upheld the State’s decision to resume the entire land parcel, remove encroachments and repurpose it for public use.

Impact on Real Estate and Cooperative Societies

This judgment sends a strong message to cooperative societies and land allottees across Maharashtra:

• Land granted for agriculture cannot be converted into housing or real estate
• Cooperative status does not provide immunity from land-use violations
• Illegal constructions on government land do not gain legitimacy over time
• The State has full authority to reclaim misused land, even decades later

For homebuyers and investors, the ruling reinforces the importance of verifying land titles, allotment conditions and land-use permissions, especially in cooperative housing developments.

Also Read: No OC for Buildings Till STP Installation: Bombay High Court Clamps Down on Sewage Pollution

The post Land Given for Farming, Not Housing: Bombay High Court Backs Maharashtra Govt in Taking Back Ambernath Cooperative Society Land appeared first on Square Feat India.

The accused have been identified as Sachin Anant Nivate (resident of Manpada, Thane) and Anil Chavan (resident of Dombivli East). According to the FIR, the duo allegedly created fake KDMC permission documents and used them to secure MahaRERA certification for the project — misleading potential homebuyers into believing the project was legally sanctioned. They even used the same doucment to register flats with the registration office,

The Case Details

Police Station: Manpada Police Station, Thane
FIR Number: 186/2024
Sections: IPC 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and relevant sections of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act

Accused:

• Sachin Anant Nivate (Age ~30, Businessman, Manpada)
• Anil Chavan (Age ~48, Resident of Dombivli East)

Building / Project: Dinkar Heights, Dombivli (E)
Period of Fraudulent Activity: Between 3 December 2022 and 28 April 2023

The FIR states that the accused forged KDMC approvals to show they had legitimate development permissions for Dinkar Heights. These forged documents were then allegedly submitted to MahaRERA to get the project registered — a move that would allow them to market and sell flats under the guise of regulatory compliance. They even used the same docuemnts to register teh apartment with the registration offices of KDMC area.

Part of a Larger Pattern: KDMC Fake Certificate Scam

This case follows the massive 65-building fake MahaRERA certificate scam that shook the KDMC region in 2022. Investigations led by whistleblower architect Sandeep Patil uncovered how dozens of developers forged municipal permissions and obtained MahaRERA registrations on fraudulent grounds.

• The Bombay High Court has ordered demolition of 65 such buildings, affecting more than 6,500 unsuspecting homebuyers.
• The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has launched a money-laundering probe.
• MahaRERA has begun statewide verification of Occupancy Certificates (OCs) — of 2,600 submitted, only 136 have been verified so far.

Despite these crackdowns, new cases like Dinkar Heights highlight that fraudulent practices are still ongoing.

What This Means for Homebuyers

For a typical buyer in Dombivli or Kalyan, a MahaRERA registration number often feels like a stamp of safety. But this case is a harsh reminder:

A MahaRERA registration alone does not guarantee that the project has genuine local approvals. Homebuyers must take the following precautions:

Check municipal approvals directly with KDMC — verify the Commencement Certificate (CC), building plan sanctions, and other permissions.
Verify land records — cross-check 7/12 extracts and ownership records with government databases.
Insist on Occupancy Certificate (OC) verification — not just what the developer shows, but what KDMC has on record.
Consult independent legal & technical experts before signing or paying any amount.
Track MahaRERA’s OC verification updates — especially for projects in KDMC’s jurisdiction, where scrutiny is now stricter.

Why This Matters

Dinkar Heights is not a one-off case. It fits into a larger trend of fraudulent building approvals in fast-developing, affordable housing zones like Dombivli and Kalyan — areas popular among middle-class Mumbaikars looking for relatively lower ticket-size homes.

With rising housing demand and rapid construction, the gap between municipal scrutiny and regulatory oversight has been exploited by unscrupulous developers. Buyers often discover the fraud only years later, when buildings face demolition notices, OC refusals, or litigation.

For innocent buyers, these cases can mean legal battles, loss of savings, and uncertainty about their homes.

Bottom Line:

Do not rely on MahaRERA registration alone. Before booking a flat in KDMC or similar regions, personally verify all municipal permissions, involve independent experts, and track regulatory actions. As the Dinkar Heights case shows, forged documents can slip through — but due diligence can save buyers from massive future shocks.

Also Read: KDMC projects cancelled registration

The post ⚠️ Caution for Innocent Homebuyers: Read This Before You Buy a Home In KDMC Area appeared first on Square Feat India.