Deemed conveyance in multi-building layouts must include specifically identified plinth area, appurtenant open spaces, and proportionate recreational grounds.

The Petitioner is a cooperative housing society whose building was constructed by Respondent No. 3 (Developer) on a larger layout at Village Bhayandar

Following the issuance of an occupation certificate in 2013 and the society's formation in 2015, the Developer failed to execute a conveyance

In a previous round of litigation, the High Court remanded the matter to Respondent No. 2 (Competent Authority) to determine the specific entitlement of the society regarding the "plinth area" and "appurtenant area" as per the Government Resolution (GR) dated June 22, 2018

Upon remand, Respondent No. 2 restricted the conveyance to only the plinth area, leading to the present Writ Petition

1. Whether the definition of "appurtenant area" under MOFA and the 2018 GR includes only the building footprint or extends to marginal setbacks and functional open spaces

2. Whether the society’s land share in a multi-building layout should be computed by a proportionate built-up area formula or by physical identification of the plinth and setbacks

3. Whether the society is entitled to a proportionate undivided share in the layout's Recreational Ground (RG)

Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, which mandates the promoter to convey the "right, title, and interest" in the land and building to the society

Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the transfer of legal incidents and appurtenances attached to a property

Government Resolution dated June 22, 2018, specifically Clause (iv)(2), which prescribes the method for determining conveyance in TDR-utilised layouts

Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR) to define "Marginal Open Space" and "Common Areas"

Maharaj Singh v. State of UP regarding the test of "functional dependence" for appurtenant land

The Court reasoned that "appurtenant area" cannot be restricted to the building's footprint (plinth), as MOFA intended to secure full title for purchasers, including areas necessary for beneficial enjoyment such as setbacks, fire safety zones, and access ways

Applying the functional dependence test, the Court found that while the Petitioner’s claim for a proportionate land share (3987.16 sq.m) was an abstract formulaic allocation, the "appurtenant area" must be physically identifiable based on sanctioned plans

The Court accepted the Developer's architect's certificate—derived from the 2019 sanctioned plans—as it specifically demarcated the Plinth Area (1151.56 sq.m) and the Appurtenant Area (1050.00 sq.m), thereby satisfying the requirements of the 2018 GR

Regarding the Recreational Ground (RG), the Court held that while the society cannot claim exclusive possession of a specific portion, it is legally entitled to a proportionate undivided beneficial interest (703.62 sq.m) because the RG was a mandatory layout amenity for all occupants

The society was granted an undivided proportionate right in 703.62 sq.m of common Recreational Ground

The High Court partly allowed the petition and set aside the order dated July 8, 2025, directing the Competent Authority to issue a fresh certificate of deemed conveyance incorporating these specific measurements within eight weeks