ROHINI GUPTA v. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR: A CRITICAL LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF DEEMED CONVEYANCE UNDER SECTION 11 OF MOFA
ROHINI GUPTA: CRITICAL LEGAL ANALYSIS AND FALLACIES The following analysis identifies potential issues in the reasoning of Rohini Gupta by comparing the judgment with the principles discussed in Ivory Properties, A.H. Wadia Trust and the other decisions referred to in the draft. The points below are arguable grounds for examination; they should not be treated as established findings of error without verification against the complete judgments and underlying documents. 1. Rohini Gupta v. District Deputy Registrar Bombay High Court | 8 September 2026 | Writ Petition No. 5991 of 2026 | Justice Sandeep V. Marne The judgment dismissed the original landowners’ writ petition and upheld the deemed conveyance of 3,901.70 sq. m. of land to the society. The principal issue is whether the Court correctly moved from its finding that the landowners were promoters to the conclusion that they were obliged to convey their reversionary ownership of the land. 2. The principal legal conflict The central issue is that Rohini Gupta recognises the principle that deemed conveyance cannot ordinarily exceed the promoter’s rights, but nevertheless upholds freehold conveyance on the particular facts before the Court. The comparison requires distinguishing between an error in interpreting Section 11 of MOFA, an error in appreciating the lease deed and registered agreements, and an error in exercising the competent authority’s jurisdiction. A different conclusion on the facts does not, by itself, establish an error of law. Legal issue Earlier legal position Rohini Gupta judgment Extent of rights under Section 11 Society ordinarily receives the rights the promoter is entitled and obliged to convey. The Court held that the landowners were also promoters and were obliged to convey their ownership interest. Leasehold versus freehold An authority cannot ordinarily substitute freehold ownership for an agreement expressly limited to leasehold rights. The Court upheld freehold conveyance, relying on the landowners’ participation in the project and the agreements concerning ownership. Effect of an existing lease assignment An assignment may fulfil the promoter’s obligation to transfer the leasehold interest. The Court held that the earlier assignment fulfilled only part of the statutory obligation because the landowners had a separate obligation. Jurisdiction under Section 11 Deemed conveyance requires failure to fulfil the statutory obligation. The Court found a continuing failure on the part of the landowners, notwithstanding the earlier assignment. Nature of proceedings Summary proceedings do not finally determine complicated title disputes. The Court upheld the order while preserving the parties’ right to pursue appropriate civil proceedings. The judgment relies on A.H. Wadia Trust, Haresh Vijaysinh Bhatia and other decisions to distinguish cases where the promoter is merely a lessee from cases where the landowner is also a promoter or has an independent statutory obligation to convey. 3. Possible errors in Rohini Gupta judgment The following are potential grounds for challenging the reasoning. They are arguable errors, not findings that the judgment is necessarily erroneous. Sr. No. Paragraph of Rohini Gupta Possible error in reasoning Legal significance 1 Paras 14–15, 21–24 Treating participation in construction as sufficient to establish an obligation to convey freehold ownership. The Court inferred that the landowners became promoters because they exercised control over construction […]
Read more
From Leasehold to Freehold: The Scope and Limitations of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA
Whether Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Under Section 11 of MOFA Can Convert Leasehold Property into Freehold? The legal position depends on the nature of the rights conferred by the original lease deed, the registered agreements for sale, the promoter’s obligations and the applicable land laws. The power to grant unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), does not automatically confer the power to convert leasehold rights into freehold ownership. However, freehold deemed conveyance may be permissible where the underlying agreements and title documents establish a legally enforceable obligation to transfer ownership. The distinction is between enforcing an existing right to ownership and creating a new proprietary right that the promoter never possessed or was never obliged to transfer. Statutory Position Under Section 11 of MOFA Section 11(1) of MOFA obliges the promoter to take the necessary steps to complete his title and convey to the society or other association of flat purchasers the promoter’s right, title and interest in the land and building, in accordance with the agreements and statutory requirements. Section 11(3) provides the mechanism for applying for deemed conveyance when the promoter fails to fulfil that obligation. Section 11(4) empowers the competent authority to examine the application and issue a certificate of entitlement, while Section 11(5) provides for the execution of the unilateral instrument. The statutory expression “his right, title and interest” is significant. It does not, by itself, mean that every deemed conveyance must transfer absolute ownership of the land. There is a fundamental distinction between the power to execute a conveyance without the promoter’s cooperation and the power to enlarge the proprietary rights that are the subject of that conveyance. Relevant Bombay High Court and Supreme Court Decisions Ivory Properties and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar Bombay High Court | 24 February 2026 | 2026:BHC-AS:9375 This judgment directly examines whether deemed conveyance under MOFA can confer freehold ownership where the underlying arrangements refer to leasehold rights. The Court accepted the legal proposition that where the MOFA agreements clearly contemplate only the assignment of leasehold rights, the competent authority cannot go beyond those agreements and grant freehold conveyance. However, the Court distinguished the facts before it. The registered agreements for sale contained provisions indicating the transfer of ownership, and the purchasers had paid consideration towards the land. Having regard to the material before it, the Court upheld the freehold deemed conveyance. The Court also clarified that complicated questions of title remain open for adjudication in appropriate civil proceedings. The decision, therefore, recognises that the mere existence of a lease arrangement does not invariably preclude freehold deemed conveyance. The terms of the registered agreements and the supporting title documents are material to determining the nature of the rights that may be conveyed. New Sonal Industries Premises Ltd. v. District Deputy Registrar Bombay High Court | 2025 | 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 391 This decision is relevant where the governing agreements specifically provide for the assignment of leasehold rights. The legal proposition relied upon in Ivory Properties is that the competent authority cannot substitute freehold ownership for an agreed assignment of […]
Read morePrinciples of Statutory Interpretation, Precedence and Limitations
Limitation of Special Laws to Override Common Statute The general principle of statutory interpretation is that a special law (lex specialis) generally prevails over a general or common statute (lex generalis) when both deal with the same subject matter and contain conflicting provisions. This principle is expressed by the Latin maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning that general provisions do not derogate from special provisions. Meaning A special law is enacted to regulate a particular subject, class of persons or specific situation, whereas a general statute applies more broadly. When both laws apply to the same matter, the special law ordinarily takes precedence over the general statute, provided that the legislature has not indicated a contrary intention. Limitations on the overriding effect of special laws The overriding effect of a special law is subject to several limitations. Legislative intention: A special law does not automatically override a general statute in every situation. The intention of the legislature must be considered. Absence of conflict: If the provisions of the special law and the general statute can operate harmoniously, both should ordinarily be given effect. Express overriding provisions: If the general statute contains an express non obstante clause, such as “notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law,” the court must examine its scope and the legislative intention behind it. Subsequent legislation: A later general statute may override an earlier special law if the legislature clearly intends to do so. However, a general amendment does not ordinarily repeal a special law by implication. Different fields of operation: Where the special law and general statute govern different aspects of a matter, the special law does not necessarily displace the general statute altogether. Constitutional supremacy: Neither a special law nor a general statute can override the Constitution. Both remain subject to constitutional limitations. Important judicial decisions LIC v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) The Supreme Court of India explained the relationship between special and general laws and recognized that a special statute ordinarily prevails over a general statute dealing with the same subject. The Court also considered whether a subsequent general enactment was intended to override the special legislation. LIC v. D.J. Bahadur establishes that the special-versus-general distinction is contextual, not absolute. A special statute does not automatically override every other statute, and the courts must examine legislative intention, inconsistency and the possibility of harmonious construction. Applied to MOFA, the decision supports a careful examination of the limits of Section 11. It does not, on its own, establish that freehold deemed conveyance is impermissible. Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. (2001) Solidaire India establishes that a later special statute may prevail over an earlier special statute where their overriding provisions conflict and the legislative intention supports that result. It does not establish that Section 11 of MOFA automatically overrides leasehold restrictions or independently authorises conversion into freehold ownership. Its relevance to a MOFA dispute is principally interpretive: the court must identify the actual statutory conflict, consider legislative intention and distinguish statutory priority from the separate question of whether the society has a substantive right to freehold title. The Supreme Court considered the conflict between […]
Read more
The Expanding Definition of “Promoter”: Impact on Landowners’ Rights. Need for parliamentary intervention?
NEED FOR AUTHORITATIVE CLARIFICATION BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON THE SCOPE OF SECTION 11 OF MOFA: GERALD MICHAEL MISQUITTA AND ROHINI GUPTA Gerald Michael Misquitta Vs State of Maharashtra ( “Gerald” ) Rohini Gupta & Anr. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors., WP No. 5991/2026, Bombay High Court, decided 8 September 2026, in which Mohini Gupta is the second petitioner. Indian Kanoon ( “Gupta” ) The two cases are quite closely connected because both concern Section 11 of MOFA, deemed conveyance, landowners/lessees, and the powers of the District Deputy Registrar (DDR). But there is an important difference: Gerald Misquitta is primarily a procedural/natural-justice case, whereas Gupta is substantially a Section 2(c)/Section 11 substantive-promoter case. Basic facts — side-by-side Sr No Particulars Gerald Michael Misquitta v. State of Maharashtra Rohini Gupta & Anr. v. DDR3 1 Court Bombay High Court Bombay High Court 2 Judgment date 25 Feb 2026 8 Sept 2026 3 Petition WP 1739/2022 WP 5991/2026 4 Ownership Misquitta family property, Vile Parle West Gupta family property, Juhu 5 Original owners Multiple Misquitta co-owners Late Kundanlal Laxmichand Gupta; petitioners were his heirs 6 Developer/lessee structure Owners → Rahejas → A.K. Associates/sub-lessee Owner → Raheja/Wadhwa lessees → developers 7 Society Name Priya Co-operative Housing Society Queens Park Premises Co-operative Society 8 Lease 98-year lease 98-year lease 9 Earlier transfer to society Society claimed/received only leasehold-related rights Society already received assignment of leasehold rights in 1978 10 DDR order 28 May 2014 23 June 2025 11 Main challenge Owners were not properly impleaded/heard; DDR did not conduct required enquiry Whether landowners themselves became “promoters” under MOFA Result DDR order + conveyance quashed and remanded Petition dismissed; DDR order upheld The Misquitta judgment records that the property was owned by several co-owners and that the society’s deemed-conveyance application proceeded without impleading all of them. Indian Kanoon The Gupta judgment records a 98-year lease from Kundanlal Gupta and subsequent construction of Queens Park by the lessees/developers. Indian Kanoon Paragraph-wise comparison This is the more useful way to read the judgments. Para 1–3 — What is being challenged? Gerald — paras 1–3 The petitioner challenged the DDR’s 28 May 2014 certificate permitting unilateral deemed conveyance and the subsequent registered deed of assignment/transfer dated 5 July 2014. The important factual feature was that the petitioner claimed to be a co-owner, but was not properly made a party to the deemed-conveyance proceedings. Indian Kanoon Gupta — paras 1–4 The petitioners were the legal heirs of the original landowner. They challenged the DDR’s order dated 23 June 2025 granting unilateral deemed conveyance of approximately 3,901.70 sq.m. to Queens Park Society. The Gupta petitioners said that their father had died in 1981 and that the DDR had proceeded on a notice issued in his name. Indian Kanoon Difference In Gerald, the central problem was: “Were all persons whose rights were affected actually heard?” In Gupta, the central question became: “Were these landowners themselves promoters under Section 2(c) MOFA?” Paragraphs 10–15 — Meaning of “promoter” This is the most important substantive difference. Gerald The Court did not finally determine the title/promoter controversy because […]
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
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