DEEMED CONVEYANCE COMPARATIVE STUDIES LEASE VS FREEHOLD : DEEMED CONVEYANCE.
Paramanand Builders LLP v. Competent Authority & District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4) & Ors. Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2022 with connected petitionsBombay High Court, decided on 24 February 20262026: BHC-AS:9299 INTRODUCTION The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Paramanand Builders LLP v. Competent Authority & District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4) & Ors., Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2022, principally concerns the scope of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”), particularly where the promoter contends that the society is entitled only to leasehold rights and not to ownership of the land. The judgment was delivered by Justice Amit Borkar on 24 February 2026. The central proposition emerging from the judgment is that the nature and extent of the conveyance must be determined by identifying the actual legally subsisting right, title and interest of the promoter, rather than merely by relying upon contractual provisions which contemplate a lease or otherwise purport to restrict the statutory conveyance. At the same time, the judgment must be read together with the Supreme Court’s subsequent/parallel exposition in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., 2025 INSC 524, which establishes an important limitation: proceedings before the Competent Authority under Section 11 are summary and cannot conclusively adjudicate disputed questions of title. An aggrieved party remains entitled to approach the civil court. A. QUESTIONS OF LAW The principal legal questions may be formulated as follows: What is the extent of the society’s entitlement under Section 11 of MOFA? Does the society receive the promoter’s entire right, title and interest, or can the promoter restrict the conveyance to leasehold rights by relying upon agreements executed with flat purchasers? Where a promoter claims to be a lessee, what is the consequence if no legally effective lease was actually created? Can contractual terms requiring execution of a lease override the statutory obligation under Section 11? What is the scope of the Competent Authority’s jurisdiction in determining the nature of the promoter’s interest? What is the precedential value of an earlier deemed-conveyance order concerning another society in the same larger property, particularly the Mahavir Co-operative Housing Society case? B. STATUTORY SCHEME Section 11 of MOFA is the statutory mechanism by which the organisation/society of flat purchasers obtains conveyance of the promoter’s interest in the land and building. The statutory expression of greatest significance is: “right, title and interest” The provision is remedial. Its object is to prevent a promoter from indefinitely retaining the title to land after having sold flats and received consideration from flat purchasers. The statutory scheme therefore proceeds on the following basis: Promoter’s obligation to convey↓Failure/refusal to execute conveyance↓Society invokes Section 11↓Competent Authority conducts statutory enquiry↓Certificate of deemed conveyance↓Registration However, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Section 11 proceeding is summary, and that the Competent Authority cannot finally determine complicated questions of title. C.RATIO OF PARAMANAND BUILDERS The judgment may be reduced to the following core ratio: The society is entitled to receive the promoter’s entire legally subsisting […]
Read more
Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under MOFA: Leasehold, Freehold and the Limits of the Competent Authority Lessons from Parmanand Builders v. Competent Authority: 24 February, 2026
Bench: Amit Borkar J The remedy of unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (“MOFA”) was introduced to protect flat purchasers and co-operative housing societies from a promoter’s failure to execute a proper conveyance. Over the years, however, deemed-conveyance proceedings have generated an important question: what exactly can the Competent Authority direct to be conveyed where the property is subject to leasehold rights? The decisions involving Parmanand Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Competent Authority provide a useful framework for understanding this issue, particularly the distinction between freehold ownership and leasehold rights, and the limits of the Competent Authority’s jurisdiction. The purpose of deemed conveyance Section 11 of MOFA places an obligation upon the promoter to convey his right, title and interest in the land and building to the organisation of flat purchasers. Where the promoter fails to execute the conveyance within the prescribed period, the society may approach the Competent Authority for a certificate enabling it to execute a unilateral deemed conveyance. The object is essentially remedial. A society should not remain indefinitely without title merely because a promoter refuses or neglects to execute the conveyance. However, deemed conveyance does not mean that the Competent Authority acquires unlimited jurisdiction over property disputes. The Authority must determine the interest that is legally capable of being conveyed and act within the framework of Section 11. Freehold and leasehold: why the distinction matters The distinction between “freehold” and “leasehold” becomes critical when determining the extent of the conveyance. In a freehold transaction, the owner generally possesses the ownership interest in the land itself. If the promoter is the owner and is under an obligation to convey the property to the society, the conveyance would ordinarily involve the promoter’s ownership interest, subject to the title documents and applicable law. A leasehold property stands on a different footing. A lessee does not own the land in the same manner as a freehold owner. The lessee possesses an interest derived from the lessor and is bound by the terms and conditions of the lease. Consequently, a promoter who possesses only leasehold rights cannot ordinarily convey a better title than the one he himself possesses. Thus, in a genuine leasehold transaction, the relevant question is not simply whether the society is entitled to deemed conveyance, but: What interest did the promoter actually acquire, and what interest is he legally capable of conveying to the society? This distinction can determine whether the appropriate instrument is a conveyance of ownership, an assignment of leasehold rights, or another form of transfer contemplated by the title documents. A proposed lease is not necessarily an existing lease ? One of the most important factual issues in such disputes is whether there was, in fact, a legally constituted lease. Documents relating to a development arrangement may contain language stating that a lease is to be executed in favour of the promoter, purchasers or the society. But a contractual provision contemplating a future lease should not automatically be treated as equivalent to an executed and legally operative lease. The title investigation therefore becomes fundamental. The Competent Authority must […]
Read more
Lease or Agreement to Lease? A Case Analysis of Deepak Fertilizers v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors., Writ Petition No. 5635 of 2005, decided on 18 December 2025 by Justice Abhay Ahuja. (Verdictum) Background and Facts The dispute arose from an agreement executed on 13 October 1995 between Deepak Fertilizers and CIDCO under a scheme through which CIDCO allotted developed residential plots to industries for construction of staff housing. The material facts were: CIDCO announced a housing scheme for industries in Navi Mumbai. Deepak Fertilizers applied for a plot for construction of residential accommodation for its employees. CIDCO allotted a plot and the parties executed an Agreement dated 13 October 1995. The agreement contemplated that: the company would satisfy several conditions; construction had to be completed within stipulated time; only after compliance would a formal lease deed be executed. Possession given to the company was only for limited purposes connected with development and construction under the agreement. The Collector of Stamps held that the agreement itself amounted to a lease and demanded ad valorem stamp duty as applicable to leases. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the company’s appeal. Deepak Fertilizers challenged those orders before the Bombay High Court. (Verdictum) Procedural History Authority Decision Collector of Stamps Held the agreement was a lease and liable to stamp duty as a lease Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Confirmed Collector’s order Bombay High Court Allowed the writ petition and set aside both orders Legal Issue The central legal issue was: Whether the Agreement dated 13 October 1995 created a present lease (demise) attracting stamp duty as a “Lease” under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, or whether it was merely an executory agreement to grant a lease in future. In simple words: Did the document itself create leasehold rights? or Was it only a promise that a lease would be executed later after conditions were fulfilled? Petitioner’s Arguments Deepak Fertilizers argued that: the document repeatedly described itself as an Agreement; it did not transfer any present interest in land; no leasehold estate came into existence immediately; execution of a future lease deed was expressly contemplated; possession was limited and conditional; therefore the agreement could not be stamped as a lease. The company relied upon earlier Bombay High Court decisions distinguishing between: agreement to lease actual lease Respondents’ Arguments The Revenue and CIDCO contended that: possession had already been handed over; the company had substantial rights over the property; practical enjoyment had commenced; therefore the agreement should be treated as a lease for stamp purposes. Core Legal Question Considered by the Court The Court examined a classical property law distinction: Does the document itself create a present demise? If yes → it is a lease. If no → it is merely an agreement to lease. This distinction has existed in Indian property law for decades. Court’s Reasoning Justice Abhay Ahuja analysed the document clause-by-clause. The Court emphasized that the substance of the document—not merely possession or nomenclature—determines its legal character. (Verdictum) No Present Transfer of Interest The Court observed that: ownership remained with CIDCO; no present leasehold estate was transferred; the agreement only created contractual obligations. This is the most important […]
Read more
THE JURISPRUDENCE OF SMEAR CAMPAIGNS: CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL, AND REGULATORY RESPONSES ACROSS COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS
SUBJECT: SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND THE LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA, THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND SINGAPORE It is obvious that, youths learn from what is talked in public. The icons are leaders, actors, politicians and those who are in public life. It’s easy in India to smear someone’s reputation. Reason is weak provisions. In India opposition leader who come from high profile family uses all his conveniences and power to disrepute and threaten all Competent Authorities. But he escapes without a scratch. Dialogues in Hindi movies like “kya karlega tera kanoon” also played important role. In my childhood we were taught by mothers not to say insulting or false about others. It was considered as sin. However it appears that deity of Karma is also tired of dealing with falsehood and false public allegations. There is a wait list for justice there too. A famous bhajan ” ninda a kare keni re” loved by Bapu is forgotten. With this common parlance discussion lets turn to the legal discussion. USA: UAE-Backed Dark PR (2023): The United Arab Emirates (UAE) hired Swiss firm Alp Services to conduct a covert, multi-year smear campaign targeting a US-based businessman, Hazim Nada, and his commodities-trading firm, Lord Energy. The campaign manipulated markets and successfully forced the company into liquidation by spreading false allegations of terrorist. ( check https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-an-american-hold-the-united-arab-emirates-responsible-for-a-smear-campaign) Martin Luther King Jr. FBI Surveillance (1960s): The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover orchestrated a massive, covert operation to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., labelling him a subversive. The agency sent defamatory packages, wiretapped his communications, and urged him to commit suicide to silence his activism. ( check: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-releases-report-fbi-crusade-against-martin-luther-king-jr-urges-ashcroft-not ) Planned Parenthood Foetal Tissue Controversy (2015): Anti-abortion groups released deceptively edited videos to accuse Planned Parenthood of illegally selling foetal tissue for profit. The healthcare organization denounced the effort as a fabricated smear campaign designed to cut off their federal funding. ( check https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34396751) UNITED KINGDOM: The Sir David Attenborough Climate Campaign (2019–2023): Following the release of the Netflix documentary Our Planet, which featured footage of Pacific walruses falling to their deaths, climate change deniers initiated a widespread smear campaign against Attenborough. The attackers falsely alleged that he and the production crew fabricated the tragedy to artificially push climate change narratives. (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-continue-smear-campaign-against-sir-david-attenborough/) The Labour Together Corporate Intelligence Report (2024–2026): In a major political controversy, it was revealed that the UK think tank Labour Together commissioned a US public relations firm (APCO) to compile a 58-page report, codenamed “Operation Cannon”. The report targeted journalists at the Sunday Times who were investigating the group’s campaign funding and attempted to discredit them by alleging foreign interference and making personal attacks. SINGAPORE Singtel vs. Telco Rivals (2015) The Incident: Telecommunications giant Singtel and social media agency Gushcloud were exposed for running an orchestrated online smear campaign against rival telcos StarHub and M1. Details: Bloggers were paid and incentivized to fabricate complaints and criticize the network connections of the rival telcos. Resolution: Following whistleblowing by blogger Xiaxue, Singtel’s CEO publicly apologized, the responsible employees were fired, and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) issued a stern warning to the telco. (check https://www.campaignasia.com/article/ethical-crackdown-regulating-singapores-influencer-scene/2xnaatoej5nqkwmj28qr5s2lyl) […]
Read more
CAN A COURT STOP A PARTY FROM SPEAKING? LESSONS FROM LILAVATI TRUST v. HDFC BANK
INTRODUCTION The Bombay High Court recently dealt with an important issue arising in a high-profile dispute between the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and HDFC Bank. The Trust instituted a defamation suit against HDFC Bank and its officials and sought interim relief restraining the defendants from making further statements allegedly affecting the reputation of the Trust and its trustees. The Court declined to grant the interim injunction. Although the final rights of the parties will be decided at trial, the order raises an important question: Can a person obtain a court order preventing another person from speaking merely because the statements are alleged to be defamatory? The answer, according to long-settled principles of Indian law, is generally no. WHY IS THIS CASE IMPORTANT? Many litigants believe that once a defamation suit is filed, the Court will immediately restrain the opposite party from making further statements. However, Indian courts have consistently adopted a cautious approach while granting injunctions in defamation matters. An injunction restricting speech is considered a serious remedy because it directly affects the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, courts insist upon a very high threshold before issuing what is effectively a “gag order”. THE REAL ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT The dispute before the Court was not whether the statements were ultimately true or false. The issue was much narrower: Here are the Prayers sought: the prayers in the Suit that forms the basis of IA 3095 are extracted below: i. A Decree may be passed for Permanent Perpetual Injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendants, their representatives, employees, agents, heirs, or any other person from vilifying ,maligning, tarnishing, levelling scathing allegations and casting aspersions upon the reputation, good will and image of the Plaintiffs and family through any medium whatsoever; ii. The Defendants and their representatives may be permanently restrained from circulating/publishing/ uploading any defamatory content harming/injuring or damaging the reputation of the Plaintiffs on any social media intermediaries; iii. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Defendants, their representatives, employees, agents, heirs, or any other person from vilifying, maligning, tarnishing, levelling scathing allegations and casting aspersions upon the reputation, good will and image of the Plaintiffs and family through any medium whatsoever; iv. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Defendants and media channels including the X Corp/Defendant No. 5 (X. Com, formerly known as Twitter) and Meta Platforms Inc. (FaceBook)/ Defendant No. 6 to remove all defamatory and libelous articles/materials from all accounts, which has been published in any form against the Plaintiff and Mr. Prashant Mehta and his family; v. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Defendant No.1 i.e., the HDFC Bank to remove the Media Statement and the Press Release from the website of theDefendant No. 1 Bank (which are accessible at)i.e.,https://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/about-us/news-room/press-release/2025/q2/media-statement and https://www.hdfcbank.com/ vi. That this Hon’ble Court […]
Read more
Committees Are Not Courts: Bombay High Court Draws the Line
STOP PLAYING JUDGE: HOUSING SOCIETIES CANNOT DECIDE TITLE An interesting case came up before the Bombay High Court, where aforesaid issue was argued and decided. Facts of the case are as under: The dispute concerns ownership of Flat No. 31 in a Malad housing society in Mumbai. The flat was purchased around 1969–70 by Ramlal Dhanuka using his own funds but was registered jointly in his name and Pannadevi (wife of his son D. R. Dhanuka). Ramlal had three sons—D. R. Dhanuka, K. R. Dhanuka, and Radheshyam Dhanuka (Respondent No. 4)—who later occupied different flats bought by him. After Ramlal and his wife died in 1989, the sons became legal heirs. In 2007, Pannadevi filed a suit claiming exclusive ownership of the disputed flat and denying any rights of Radheshyam. She died in 2008, and her legal heirs continued the case. Meanwhile, an order was passed restraining the housing society from transferring or dealing with the flat’s membership rights until the suit is decided. Core issue: Whether the flat belongs exclusively to Pannadevi or forms part of the family property. Now let us see the arguments of the Petitioner: the Society argued that Respondent No. 4 wrongly applied for transfer of membership instead of transmission after the member’s death and failed to follow mandatory procedures under Bye-Law 35, including public notice and verification of legal heirs, while also submitting an incomplete application. It also argued that there are disputes among heirs; society further contended that the Divisional Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to hear a revision against the Deputy Registrar’s order, but the Court rejected this, holding that cooperative societies only perform limited administrative roles (not deciding ownership, as noted in Usha Jhaveri vs State of Maharashtra) and that revisional authority remains valid despite delegation of powers, thereby upholding the legality of such review. Respondent member argued that: After the earlier suit concerning the flat was unconditionally withdrawn in 2012, clearing disputes over title, Respondent No. 4 applied for membership as a legal heir, but the society failed to decide his application, leading him to seek deemed membership and later file a revision; he argued that the society had effectively recognized him by accepting maintenance charges and that minor defects in the application form should not defeat his substantive claim of succession, while also relying on lack of opposition from key family members, whereas the petitioners contended that multiple heirs existed and the application was invalid due to incorrect form and procedure; the Court, however, emphasized that substance prevails over form, held that the application was essentially for transmission based on inheritance despite technical errors, found that the alleged disputes among heirs were not strong enough to justify inaction, and rejected the jurisdictional objection, thereby supporting the validity of the revisional proceedings and Respondent No. 4’s claim being considered. It was held by the Bombay High Court that: the dispute before the society was not about ownership/title, but merely about recognition of membership after the death of a member, making it an issue of internal administration rather than adjudication of property rights. It emphasized that Section 30 of the Maharashtra Cooperative […]
Read more
“Can Sons Restrain a Mother from Transferring Property? A Legal Analysis under Hindu Law”
CAN SONS FILE SUIT AGAINST MOTHER (HINDU) FOR STAY AGAINST TRANSFER OF SHARES / PROPERTY HELD BY MOTHER IN A FAMILY PROPERTY/ PRIVATE COMPANY ABSOLUTELY TO DAUGHTER? Hindu law prohibits dowry. But dowry is given in one form or another. Hindu Law after 2004 amendment gave equal right to married daughter in father’s property. View of Author Equal property rights for married daughters are an important step toward fairness and gender equality. However, in some families this can also create tensions in relationships. After marriage, daughters may be influenced by their husband or in-laws, and when disputes over property arise, disagreements can escalate into legal battles or serious family conflicts. While the intention behind laws like the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is to ensure justice and equal rights, the practical implementation sometimes leads to strained family ties when expectations about property are unclear or contested. In such situations, disagreements over inheritance may even end up in court or cause long-lasting rifts within families. Therefore, along with legal equality, maintaining open communication, clear property planning, and mutual understanding within families is important to prevent conflicts and preserve relationships. Law makers must prevent this situation resulting into strained relationships. Broken relations makes society psychologically weaker. Continue… with article… Let us see Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.―(1)Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.―In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. If the shares are the mother’s self-acquired property (bought by her or gifted to her), she has absolute authority to transfer them to anyone she wishes, and the sons have no legal standing to stop her during her lifetime. Section 5 of the said Act provides for exception: Act not to apply to certain properties. ―This Act shall not apply to― (i) any property succession to which is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( 39 of 1925), by reason of the provisions contained in section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954); (ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered […]
Read more
The Jungle, the Fairy, and the Ballot Box
“The Fairy and the Freebie: How Easy Comfort Weakens a Nation” As soon as Election comes every political party starts disbursing money to the voters. Some offer monthly Rs.70,000/- some offer. The taxpayer is a mute spectator. I will tell you story of a Jungle. The Story of the Jungle Once upon a time, there was a beautiful jungle where all the animals lived peacefully. They worked hard to find their food by hunting and gathering. They shared with one another and cared for each other. The jungle was full of love, cooperation, and happiness. All the animals helped one another and took responsibility for their lives. They were strong, active, and independent. One day, a fairy came to the jungle. She had a magic wand. By waving her wand, she started giving food and water to all the animals and birds. At first, everyone was happy. But slowly, the animals became lazy. Since food was easily available, they stopped working and hunting. They spent most of their time sleeping and eating. Over time, they even found it difficult to walk and run because they were no longer active. After a few months, a hunter entered the jungle. He began hunting the animals recklessly. Earlier, the animals were brave and skilled at escaping or fighting back. But now, because they were weak and lazy, many of them were easily caught in traps. Many animals were hunted. Fear spread throughout the jungle. The King of the Jungle called a meeting. All the animals gathered and discussed what had gone wrong. They realized that the fairy had been sent by the hunter to make them weak and dependent. Because of her magic, they had lost their strength and alertness. They decided to send the fairy away from the jungle. After the fairy was deported, the animals slowly returned to their old habits. They started working hard again, hunting, sharing, and taking care of one another. Soon, the jungle became peaceful and happy once more. Moral of the Story Easy comfort can make us weak. Hard work and self-reliance make us strong. ____________________________________________________________ Freebies and Constitution The legality of election “freebies” in India hinges on balancing Directive Principles (social welfare) with fiscal responsibility under the Constitution. While critics argue they constitute bribery and misuse public funds (violating Art. 266, 282), the Supreme Court in The S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2013) case is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment regarding electoral freebies. The Court ruled that pre-poll promises in election manifestos do not constitute a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, as they are part of a party’s agenda, not individual bribery. The judgment established a distinction between election promises for public welfare and the direct bribery of voters. However, it has been criticized for failing to curb the growing culture of “freebie politics” that threatens state finances. Latest View of Supreme Court: TAMIL NADU POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 158/2026 Currently the view of Supreme Court has changed its view. In the above matter CJI Suryakant said […]
Read more
“RERA in India: Repeal or Reform?
SHOULD RERA BE REPEALED? Why we are discussing this topic? The Supreme Court in THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. NARESH SHARMA| SLP(C) No. 005835 – / 2026 CJI Surya Kant said It is high time that all the states should revisit and rethink constituting this authority,” The CJI further remarked that the RERA was not doing any other services except to facilitate builders in default. Let’s study pros and Cons. RERA is useful and effective: The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) brings accountability, transparency, and efficiency to the Indian real estate sector, primarily protecting homebuyers. Key benefits include mandatory project registration, standardized carpet area definitions, 70% of funds kept in an escrow account to prevent diversion, guaranteed timely delivery, and a 5-year defect liability period. Major Positive Points of RERA: Transparency and Disclosure: Promoters must disclose project plans, layout, land title status, and timeline on the RERA website, giving buyers access to verified information. Protection of Funds: Developers are required to deposit 70% of all project funds into a dedicated bank account, ensuring money is only used for that specific project, reducing insolvency risk. Standardized Carpet Area: RERA eliminates confusion by defining “carpet area” clearly, ensuring buyers pay only for the actual usable space, not for common areas or super built-up areas. Builders were selling units/galas/flats even on Super Built Up basis. Timely Delivery and Penalties: Projects must be completed on time. If a developer delays possession, they are liable to pay interest on the amount paid by the buyer, matching the interest rate for buyer default. Defect Liability Period: Builders are responsible for rectifying any structural defects or quality issues reported within 5 years of possession at no extra cost. Reduced Fraud and Misleading Ads: All advertising must adhere to the registered project details. False promises or misleading marketing can lead to penalties. Redressal Mechanism: RERA authorities provide a fast-track, organized, and legal mechanism for settling disputes between buyers, developers, and agents. Consent for Changes: Developers cannot change plans or structure without the consent of two-thirds of the homebuyers. Concluding Notes: RERA has significantly improved buyer confidence, increased project efficiency, and bYes—**before the introduction of RERA in India**, this kind of malpractice was unfortunately quite common in the real estate sector. ROLE OF REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY (INDIA) Before RERA came into force (around 2016–2017), there was no strong centralized regulator, which allowed many builders to exploit buyers. What Used to Happen Before RERA Blank or Incomplete Agreements Builders often made buyers sign blank or partially filled agreements Later, terms were changed without the buyer’s consent. Buyers had little legal protection. Multiple Sales of the Same Flat. Blank document was signed and genuine buyer in possession was not aware of the same. Some builders sold **one flat to 5–10 people** using: Duplicate allotment letters Fake agreements Backdated documents Especially common when buyers paid in cash or instalments. Mix of Investors and Loan Buyers: Builder was taking loans from investors in cash against blank agreement. Such funds were cash. Investors were given early “soft bookings” without registration. Genuine buyers took bank loans […]
Read more
CAN A HOUSING SOCIETY SELL TDR TO A PRIVATE MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY UNDER DOCUMENT OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND RESOLUTIONS?
JURISDICTION OF CO-OPERATIVE COURT AND BINDING NATURE OF SOCIETY RESOLUTIONS Let us first see what is TDR? Transferring Development Rights (TDR) by a housing society involves the society, as a landowner, generating extra buildable area (TDR) by surrendering land for public use (like roads, parks) to the municipality, receiving a TDR certificate (or Development Right Certificate – DRC), and then selling these rights to a developer or another party to build more than standard Floor Space Index (FSI) allows, benefiting both the society (compensation for land) and the buyer (extra construction rights). This process helps fund infrastructure projects and allows societies to get value for reserved plots, making TDR a crucial tool in urban development, especially in places like Mumbai. How it Works for a Society: Land Surrender: The housing society owns land, often designated for public amenities (e.g., a playground, road widening) by the city. TDR Generation: Instead of cash compensation, the Municipal Corporation (like MCGM in Mumbai) issues a TDR certificate (DRC) to the society, representing the Floor Space Index (FSI) potential of the surrendered land. Selling the Rights: The society can then sell this certificate to a builder or another property owner. Utilisation: The buyer uses the TDR to construct additional built-up area on their own plot, exceeding the normal FSI limits, often in a designated “receiving zone”. Benefits of TDR for Societies Financial Compensation: Provides funds for the society (often through developers) without the government paying cash, allowing land acquisition for public projects. Development Incentive: Encourages development and helps resolve land reservations, as owners get value for undevelopable land. Legal Avenue: Offers a way for societies and trusts to utilize or sell their development potential POINT OF CAUTION: A Housing Society cannot legally sell Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to a private member using only a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Resolutions. TDR transactions must follow a formal, regulated process involving proper documentation and approval from the competent authorities to be legally valid. Legal Requirements for TDR Transfer : TDR is a formal legal instrument: TDR is an official development right issued by a municipal authority as a Development Right Certificate (DRC). This certificate is a tradeable commodity, similar to a stock, in a formal market. Formal Agreements are Required: Any transaction involving the sale or transfer of TDR requires a registered agreement, such as a formal TDR Sale Agreement, not just an MoU or simple resolutions. The agreement must be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Statutory Compliance and Oversight: The transaction must comply with the relevant state laws, such as the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, and local Development Control Regulations (DCRs). Regulatory Approvals: The transfer must be registered with the Sub-Registrar and updated on the relevant municipal or urban local body’s (ULB) online TDR portal (if available). Authorities track the chain of ownership and usage of TDRs to prevent misuse and ensure transparency. Transparency and Fair Value: Transactions by a housing society, especially those involving a private member, are subject to scrutiny to ensure the society receives fair market value and to prevent irregularities or fraud. Risks of Using Only […]
Read more