Developers cannot indefinitely delay land conveyance to societies to exploit additional FSI or TDR benefits, rules Bombay High Court

The Petitioner, a developer, challenged orders dated 22 November 2023 and 2 June 2025 passed by the Competent Authority granting unilateral deemed conveyance to Shree Jupiter CHSL and Shree Siddhi CHSL

Initially, the Petitioner planned separate buildings on distinct parcels of land but in 1997 applied for a common layout amalgamation for three buildings (Shree Siddhi, Shree Jupiter, and Mercury)

The societies sought deemed conveyance for land area proportionate to the built-up area (BUA) utilized under the 1997 layout

The Petitioner contested this, arguing that the conveyance should be restricted to the specific smaller land areas mentioned in the original Section 4 MOFA Agreements (822 sq.mtrs and 1416.50 sq.mtrs respectively)

The Petitioner also claimed the orders prejudiced his rights to complete Building No. 3 (Mercury) under a subsequent 2007 plan and violated consent terms with another society

1. Whether a developer is bound to convey land based on the actual layout development and BUA utilized, even if the Section 4 Agreements specify a smaller area

2. Whether the proportionate land division should be based on the layout plan existing at the time of construction (1997) or a subsequently revised plan (2007) involving additional FSI/TDR

The court applied Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, regarding the promoter’s duty to convey title

It emphasized Section 16 of MOFA, which dictates that the Act overrides any contract to the contrary

The court further utilized the Government Resolution (GR) dated 22 June 2018, which mandates that where multiple buildings exist on one plot, deemed conveyance must be granted based on the "Proportionate Area" or "Ground Coverage" utilized by each building

The court reasoned that although Section 4 Agreements initially specified smaller areas, the Petitioner chose to amalgamate the plots and execute a layout development in 1997 to gain FSI advantages

If conveyance were restricted to the contractual figures, the buildings would be rendered illegal as they consume FSI arising from the larger amalgamated plot

The court held that the Competent Authority correctly applied the 2018 GR to divide the land proportionately based on utilized BUA

Crucially, the court rejected the Petitioner’s reliance on the 2007 revised plan, stating that a developer cannot indefinitely delay conveyance to "milk" additional FSI/TDR benefits for their own profit; once a society is formed, it is entitled to the land and FSI benefits intended at the time of its construction

The court found that the Petitioner’s statutory duty under Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules to convey title within four months of society formation had been breached long before the 2007 plan was conceived

It held that the proportionate land division based on the 1997 layout plan was valid and that the Petitioner remains titled only to the residual land area (approx. 756.87 sq.mtrs) for further construction of Building No. 3

The court clarified that consent terms with third parties not involving the Respondent-Societies do not bind them or invalidate their right to deemed conveyance