Flat societies’ land entitlement freezes after the statutory conveyance period; later TDR-based plans cannot reduce it without written consent, Bombay HC rules

The dispute concerned proportionate conveyance of land in a multi-building layout under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”). The larger property admeasured 55,696.70 sq. m.; Sub-Plot A was ultimately rearranged and enlarged to 21,807.18 sq. m. Five buildings were sanctioned in the layout, of which four were constructed: Satellite Garden I, Sadguru Complex 1 (AB), Sadguru Complex 1 (CD), and Satellite Tower; one building remained unconstructed.

Satellite Garden I CHSL was formed in 2002 and had earlier instituted a civil suit seeking conveyance of the original Sub-Plot A admeasuring 16,855.47 sq. m.

The other societies applied for unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA. The Competent Authority granted Satellite Tower only 4,864.21 sq. m., corresponding to its plinth; Sadguru Complex 1 (AB) only 643.81 sq. m.; and Sadguru Complex 1 (CD) 2,134.15 sq. m., including a proportionate share in the recreational-ground area.

The layout had undergone successive revisions. The original layout sanctioned on 10 March 2005 contemplated a total BUA of approximately 21,587.60 sq. m. without incentive FSI/TDR. A later plan dated 9 July 2010 substantially increased the permissible BUA to approximately 40,343.28 sq. m. through large-scale use of slum TDR, particularly in Sadguru Complex 1 (CD) and Satellite Tower.

Whether, in a multi-building layout, the land entitlement of a society for purposes of conveyance or deemed conveyance should be determined proportionately to the BUA used in its building, or be restricted to the building’s plinth and appurtenant area where TDR or incentive FSI has been used?

Whether subsequent revisions of the sanctioned layout plan, including loading of TDR or grant of additional/incentive FSI, can reduce the proportionate land entitlement of an earlier society whose right to conveyance had already accrued under Sections 10 and 11 of MOFA and Rules 8 and 9 of the MOF Rules?

What is the relevant sanctioned plan for determining proportionate land division— the first sanctioned plan, the plan existing when the statutory right to conveyance crystallised, or the last revised plan?

Whether the impugned deemed-conveyance orders granting unequal areas to Satellite Tower, Sadguru Complex 1 (AB), and Sadguru Complex 1 (CD) were legally sustainable?

The Court applied Sections 4, 7, 7A, 10, 11 and 16 of MOFA and Rules 8 and 9 of the MOF Rules.

Section 4 requires disclosure of the sanctioned plans and the material terms of the development; Sections 7 and 7A restrict alterations or additional construction without the requisite previous consent; Section 10 requires timely formation of the organisation of flat purchasers; and Section 11 imposes a statutory duty to convey the promoter’s right, title and interest in the land and building, with deemed conveyance available upon default.

Rule 8 requires formation of the society within four months after the minimum number of purchasers acquire flats, while Rule 9 requires conveyance within four months of formation of the society.

The Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018 is only a procedural guideline and cannot override MOFA or the MOF Rules; its provision for plinth and appurtenant-area conveyance in TDR cases is a transitional solution applicable only where proportionate division is genuinely impracticable, not a mechanical rule.

The Court relied, inter alia, on Neelkanth Mansions, Nook CHS Ltd., Mahanagar Realty, Gala Complex, Malad Kokil CHSL, Lakeview Developers, and Arunkumar H. Shah (HUF) for the principles that later plans cannot defeat accrued rights, developers cannot benefit from delayed conveyance, and deemed conveyance remains subject to adjudication of disputed title by a civil court.

The Court rejected both the mechanical restriction of conveyance to plinth area and the use of the last revised plan where that plan resulted from later loading of TDR or additional FSI.

Although proportionate division based on total BUA may ordinarily be appropriate where the layout is developed under one plan and the development potential is uniformly disclosed, applying the later TDR-loaded BUA in the present case would give Satellite Tower and other later buildings a windfall and reduce the land share of Satellite Garden I and other buildings constructed under the earlier plan.

Under Sections 10 and 11 of MOFA and Rules 8 and 9, the earlier societies’ rights crystallised when the statutory period for conveyance expired. The developer’s failure to execute conveyance could not permit it to revise the layout and transfer the earlier societies’ land entitlement to subsequent buildings.

Mere inaction by an earlier society in immediately challenging additional construction did not amount to the express previous consent required under Section 7 of MOFA and could not dilute its crystallised land rights.

Written consent could justify using a later sanctioned plan, but no sufficient prima facie consent was shown in the present case.

Accordingly, the Court treated the layout plan dated 10 March 2005, which did not include the later massive TDR loading, as the relevant basis for land division. It directed that the four existing societies’ entitlements be calculated using the BUA figures reflected in that plan, while excluding the unconstructed building and temple from further reservation.

The relevant basis in the present case was the sanctioned layout plan dated 10 March 2005, using the following BUA figures: Satellite Garden I—11,186.41 sq. m.; Sadguru Complex 1 (AB)—3,126.32 sq. m.; Sadguru Complex 1 (CD)—830.92 sq. m.; and Satellite Tower—5,778 sq. m.

The deemed-conveyance orders dated 31 October 2025, 16 May 2024 and 6 March 2025 were set aside. Applications Nos. 153 of 2025, 138 of 2023 and 22 of 2025 were remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication.

The Competent Authority was directed to obtain a fresh architect’s certificate distributing the entire 21,807.18 sq. m. of Sub-Plot A among the four existing societies in proportion to the specified BUA figures and to decide the applications in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.

The petitions were accordingly disposed of without costs.