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
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026 – Key Amendments Explained Q and A
Description: Learn about the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026, including changes to Sections 73AAA, 73B, 73C, 73CB, 73F, 81 and 157, their legal implications, and what co-operative societies need to do to comply. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026: What Every Co-operative Society Should Know The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2026 has introduced several important changes to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Although the amendments are limited to a few provisions, they significantly impact the governance, election process, committee administration, and regulatory compliance of co-operative societies across Maharashtra. The amendments primarily strengthen the role of the State Co-operative Election Authority (SCEA), streamline the procedure for filling committee vacancies, update audit thresholds, and improve transparency in the management of co-operative societies. Whether you are a committee member, housing society office bearer, director of a credit society, auditor, advocate, chartered accountant, or consultant, understanding these amendments is essential for ensuring statutory compliance. Why Was the Amendment Necessary? The co-operative sector in Maharashtra is one of the largest in India, comprising housing societies, credit societies, consumer societies, agricultural societies, industrial co-operatives, and numerous other institutions. Over the years, practical issues emerged relating to: delays in filling committee vacancies; disputes concerning multiple-seat elections; lack of uniform supervision during committee proceedings; ambiguity regarding election authorities; and outdated financial thresholds. The Amendment Act addresses these concerns by introducing clearer procedures and strengthening institutional oversight. Key Amendments Introduced by the 2026 Amendment Act Amendment to Section 73AAA – Exemption for Type “A” Societies The first proviso to Section 73AAA(3) has been deleted. Further, the second proviso has been amended to exclude committees of Type “A” Societies prescribed under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. Practical Impact The amendment differentiates Type “A” societies from other classes of co-operative societies for the purpose of this provision. Societies falling within this category should carefully examine whether the amended provision applies to them before initiating committee-related actions. Amendments to Sections 73B and 73C – Greater Election Supervision Sections 73B and 73C deal with representation of reserved categories on the managing committee. The Amendment Act now provides that whenever vacancies are filled under these provisions, the committee meeting must be presided over by an officer authorized by the State Co-operative Election Authority (SCEA). Why This Matters Earlier, committee meetings were conducted internally, which occasionally resulted in procedural disputes. Independent supervision by an authorized election officer is expected to: improve transparency; reduce allegations of bias; ensure procedural compliance; and increase confidence in the election process. Amendment to Section 73CB – Clarification of Election Authorities Section 73CB contains provisions relating to election administration. The Explanation has now been amended by specifically referring to: Divisional Co-operative Election Officers; District Co-operative Election Officers; Taluka Co-operative Election Officers; Ward Co-operative Election Officers; Observers; and Zonal Officers. Importance The amendment removes ambiguity by expressly identifying the authorities responsible for election-related functions. This provides greater administrative certainty during election proceedings. Complete Substitution of Section 73F – Election to Multiple Committee Seats One of the most significant amendments is the complete substitution of Section 73F. Earlier Position The earlier provision did […]
Read moreTransfers Beyond Statutory Ceiling Limits: Supreme Court Explains the Scope of Section 154 Violations
Supreme Court Clarifies the Nature of Transfers Violating Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act: In Arafat Ali (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Ors. Introduction In a significant judgment delivered on 23 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India in Arafat Ali (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Others settled an important question concerning agricultural land transfers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (“UPZA&LR Act”). The Court examined whether a transfer executed in violation of Section 154 of the Act is void from its inception or merely voidable through appropriate legal proceedings. The ruling provides much-needed clarity for landowners, purchasers, revenue authorities, and practitioners dealing with consolidation and agricultural land disputes in Uttar Pradesh. FACTS OF THE CASE The dispute arose during consolidation proceedings relating to agricultural land transfers allegedly made in contravention of Section 154 of the UPZA&LR Act. The provision restricts acquisition and transfer of agricultural land beyond prescribed statutory limits to prevent excessive concentration of landholdings. The central issue before the Court was whether such transfers automatically become legally non-existent (void ab initio) or continue to have legal effect unless and until challenged before a competent authority. LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED The Supreme Court was called upon to determine: Whether a transfer of agricultural land made in violation of Section 154 of the UPZA&LR Act is void ab initio or merely voidable under the statutory framework. The answer to this question carries substantial consequences for land titles, mutation entries, consolidation proceedings, and rights of subsequent purchasers. SUPREME COURT’S FINDINGS The Supreme Court held that a transfer made in contravention of Section 154 is not void ab initio. Instead, such a transfer is voidable and remains effective unless it is challenged and set aside through legally prescribed procedures. THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: Violation of Section 154 Does Not Automatically Nullify the Transfer A transaction executed in breach of the statutory restriction does not cease to exist in the eyes of law merely because the provision has been violated. The transfer continues to operate unless competent proceedings are initiated to invalidate it. Distinction Between Void and Voidable Transactions The judgment reiterates the well-established legal distinction: Void Transaction: A transaction having no legal existence from the very beginning. Voidable Transaction: A transaction that remains valid and enforceable until annulled by a competent authority or court. By classifying transfers violating Section 154 as voidable, the Court protected the principle of legal certainty in property transactions. Applicability of Law Existing on the Date of Transfer The Court observed that the validity of a transfer must ordinarily be assessed with reference to the legal position prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed or transfer instrument. Appropriate Statutory Remedies Must Be Invoked The Court clarified that challenges to such transfers must be pursued through the mechanisms contemplated under the statute, including proceedings that may be initiated by competent authorities or the Gaon Sabha where applicable. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT […]
Read more
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS UNDER GST: ANALYSIS OF LUNA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (GUJARAT HIGH COURT)
Introduction The Gujarat High Court’s decision in Luna Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India has added another significant chapter to the ongoing debate concerning the GST implications of transfers of leasehold rights in industrial plots. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a transfer of leasehold rights by an existing lessee is fundamentally different from the original grant of lease by a statutory authority and cannot automatically be subjected to GST as a supply of service. The ruling is particularly relevant for industries operating in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) estates and for taxpayers involved in the transfer of long-term leasehold interests in industrial land. Background of the Dispute Luna Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. held leasehold rights in an industrial plot allotted through the GIDC framework. Subsequently, the company assigned its leasehold rights to another entity after obtaining the requisite approvals from GIDC. The GST authorities initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging that the assignment of leasehold rights constituted a taxable supply of services and consequently raised a demand for GST. The petitioner challenged the demand before the Gujarat High Court. CORE LEGAL ISSUE The principal question before the Court was: Whether the assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot by a lessee to a third party constitutes a taxable supply of services under the GST regime. The answer depended upon the characterization of the transaction. If the transaction represented a supply of service, GST would be leviable. Conversely, if it constituted a transfer of an interest in immovable property, it would fall outside the scope of taxable supplies. RATIO DECIDENDI The Court held that the transfer of leasehold rights by an existing lessee is legally distinct from the original lease granted by GIDC. The ratio of the decision may be summarized as follows: The assignment of long-term leasehold rights by a lessee results in the transfer of an existing interest in immovable property and does not amount to a taxable supply of services merely because the original allotment was made through a lease arrangement. Consequently, GST cannot be imposed on such assignment solely by treating it as a continuation of the original leasing transaction. Distinction between Lease and Assignment A key aspect of the judgment is the Court’s recognition of the legal distinction between: Original Lease by GIDC GIDC grants the right to use and enjoy immovable property while retaining ownership. Such a transaction may be characterized as a supply of service under GST. Subsequent Assignment by the Lessee The lessee transfers its existing leasehold interest to another person. The assignor divests itself of the rights held in the property. The transaction involves transfer of an interest in immovable property rather than provision of a service. The Court emphasized that these are two separate legal transactions and cannot be treated identically for GST purposes. Reliance on Earlier Precedent The judgment follows the Gujarat High Court’s earlier ruling in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. Union of India, where the Court had examined the GST treatment of leasehold interests in industrial plots. By relying on the principles laid […]
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
“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
CRITICAL ROLE OF TITLE CLEARANCE IN REDEVELOPMENT
In a redevelopment project, it is highly recommended to verify and clear the property’s title first before formally deciding on and appointing a builder. While a builder can be tentatively selected (e.g., via a Letter of Intent or a resolution in a Special General Body Meeting), formalizing the development agreement and starting the actual project activities (like demolition or construction) without a clear and marketable title creates significant legal and financial risks. Why Title Clearance is Crucial First Legal Requirement: For a builder to obtain necessary municipal approvals and a Commencement Certificate (CC) to begin construction, the society must generally have a clear and marketable title to the land. This is often achieved through a registered conveyance deed or “deemed conveyance”. Risk Mitigation: Unclear land titles are a common source of delays and litigation in redevelopment projects. Title disputes can halt the project indefinitely, leaving both the builder and the society members in a precarious situation (e.g., displaced and without their new homes). Financial Safeguard: A clear title ensures the project is legally sound and makes it easier for the builder to secure project financing and for future buyers in the free-sale component to get home loans. This financial stability is a key factor in a project’s success. Transparency and Trust: Conducting thorough legal due diligence, including title verification, at an early stage demonstrates transparency and helps build trust between the society members and the chosen developer. Recommended Order of Operations (General Steps) Initial Decisions & Structural Audit: The society discusses redevelopment and conducts a structural audit to determine feasibility. Appoint Professionals: An architect/Project Management Consultant (PMC) and a legal advisor are appointed to guide the process. Title Verification/Conveyance: The society’s legal team conducts comprehensive title verification and works to obtain a clear conveyance deed or deemed conveyance for the property. Builder Selection: Once the title is confirmed, a transparent tendering process is used to select a reputable builder with a proven track record, financial stability, and relevant experience. Formal Agreements: A detailed Development Agreement (DA) and individual Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) are meticulously drafted, vetted by legal experts, and registered. Project Commencement: The builder then seeks the required approvals (IOD, CC, etc.) and begins construction. Prioritizing title clearance helps safeguard the interests of all stakeholders and ensures a smoother, legally compliant redevelopment process. HOW FAR A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BY A SOLICITOR/ ADVOCATE IS SIGNIFICANT? In Ramniklal Tulsidas Kotak And Others vs Varsha Builders And Others on 26 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: AIR1992BOM62, AIR 1992 BOMBAY 62, (1993) MAH LJ 323, (1992) 2 BANKCAS 441, (1992) 2 BOM CR 492 “(1) A Certificate of Title need not necessarily be unconditional or unqualified. It can be qualified to the limited extent of the implied statutory exception contained in Section 3(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Ownerships Flats Act, 1963, as interpreted above. The Format of the Certificate of Title prescribed by the rules is mandatory, subject only to a limited scope for adaptability as explained in the judgment. A qualified certificate of title must furnish all relevant information as set out in paragraph 19 of this judgment. (2) The Promoter must […]
Read moreSELF REDEVELOPMENT
SELF REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT – SUGGESTIONSThe government of Maharashtra is actively pursuing the establishment of a dedicated Redevelopment Oversight Authority. This body would function as an independent authority to regulate, streamline, and monitor all types of redevelopment projects across the state, with a specific focus on increasing transparency and resolving disputes.A suggestion was floated by writer of this blog. It is now under consideration.Moving forward what are suggestions? Establishment of a judicial body with judicial powers to monitor and resolve issues including of title of land (which is not with RERA); If government is of the opinion that right of civil court will be ousted, then Development Authority must be empowered to refer the issue to Civil Court. Key Details and Objectives Scope: The proposed authority would have specialized jurisdiction over all redevelopment projects, including those initiated by private developers, self-redevelopment schemes by cooperative housing societies (CHS), cluster redevelopment, and Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) projects. Aims: The primary goals are to accelerate project timelines, enhance accountability, and provide regulatory clarity, addressing common challenges like bureaucratic delays, opaque agreements, and litigation that often stall projects. Functions: Streamlined Approvals: Act as a single-window clearance mechanism to facilitate faster project sanctions. Monitoring and Compliance: Monitor project progress using technology-enabled reporting and enforce penalties for undue delays. Dispute Resolution: Serve as a quasi-judicial body to mediate and resolve conflicts between residents, developers, and planning authorities. Standardization: Standardize procedures for project planning, developer selection, and financial approvals Current StatusThe state government has already established a separate Self Redevelopment Authority (SRA, distinct from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority) to specifically promote and expedite projects undertaken by housing societies themselves, appointing a chairman for the new body. The broader, overarching Redevelopment Oversight Authority for all project types is currently in the planning stage, with high-level committees having submitted reports recommending its formation.This initiative is expected to have a significant impact on urban areas like Mumbai and Pune, where aging buildings and high demand make redevelopment a critical part of the urban growth strategy. Maharashtra’s Self-Redevelopment Rules, guided by Government Resolutions (GRs) from 2019 and subsequent amendments, enable housing societies to redevelop buildings over 30 years old, offering benefits like extra Floor Space Index (FSI) and incentives, requiring society ownership, member consent (typically 70%+), appointing experts (PMC, Architect), and securing loans via banks like MDCC Bank, streamlining approvals with a single-window system for transparency, but necessitate adherence to Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act rules.Key Eligibility & Requirements: Age: Building must be 30+ years old. Ownership: Society must own the land (Conveyance Deed) or have a valid purchase agreement. Registration: Must be registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Consent: At least 70% member consent is generally needed for major decisions. Audit: Societies need ‘A’ or ‘B’ audit class for loans. Benefits & Incentives: Extra FSI/TDR: Societies get 10% more FSI/incentive space than usual. Reduced Costs: Lower premiums, taxes, and charges. Single Window: Streamlined approvals via a nodal agency. Process Overview: Formation: Society decides on self-redevelopment. Appointment: Appoint Project Management Consultant (PMC), Architect, Legal Advisor. Approvals: Secure initial permissions (IOD/LOA) at society cost. Loan: Apply to banks like Mumbai […]
Read more
पुनर्विकास परियोजनाओं के लिए न्यायिक निकाय की आवश्यकता
पुनर्विकास परियोजनाओं के लिए न्यायिक निकाय की आवश्यकता आज हम बात करेंगे एक बहुत क्रिटिकल मुद्दा है रीडवलपमेंट। रीडवलपमेंट फंडामेंटल राइट, आर्टिकल 300 ए, गाइडलाइन 79 ए और मैनेजिंग कमेट। अब हम आगे बढ़ते हैं। उसके पहले मैं आपसे निवेदन करूंगी कि मेरे यह चैनल को लाइक, सब्सक्राइब और शेयर कीजिए क्योंकि यह फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट है और आपको यह जो है मुद्दे वो आपके जनरल पब्लिक के काम में आते हैं वैसे मुद्दे हैं। चलो आगे बढ़ते हैं हम रीडवलपमेंट में। रीडवलपमेंट एक बहुत हॉट केक है और ये हर एक तीसरा बिल्डिंग रीडवलपमेंट में जा रहा है। सही बात है। जैसे हमारी लाइफ है तो हम यह जैसे हमारे हिंदू शास्त्रों में लिखा है कि हम शरीर छोड़ के हमारा आत्मा नए शरीर में जाता है और नया जन्म लेता है। तो जो इधर है उसको नया जन्म लेना ही पड़ता है। तो वैसे ही अगर बिल्डिंग पुराना हो जाए तो उसको नया बनाना पड़ता है। तो उसके लिए सबसे पहले जो मूवमेंट शुरू हुई थी वो आइलैंड सिटी ऑफ मुंबई से हुई थी क्योंकि सारे के सारे जो पुराने बिल्डिंग्स थे जो चॉल्स थी वो मसून के सीजन में कॉलेज हो जाती थी उसके लिए कोई कानून नहीं थे और मुरली देवरा जो हमारे बहुत वरिष्ठ नेता थे उन्होंने एक कानून लाया और रीडवलपमेंट ऑफ डाई लेपिटेटेड बिल्डिंग्स। तो इसके तहत उन लोगों को काफी सुविधा मिली और यह शुरुआत में जो थी वो सेस बिल्डिंग के लिए थी और वो चर्च गेट्स कुलाबा से लेके बैंड्रा तक एप्लीकेबल थी। धीरे-धीरे 1991 आया जो डीसीआर 1991 डेवलपमेंट कंट्रोल रेगुलेशन 1991 आया और उसके अंदर सारे प्रावधान किए गए। माड़ा की लैंड को रीडवलप कैसे किया जाए? स्लम को कैसे रीडवलप किया जाए? आर्मी वाली जो है पुलिस हेड क्वार्टर्स कैसे डेवलप किया जाए? बीएएमसी की जो प्रॉपर्टीज है उसको कैसे डेवलप किया जाए? और जो हाउसिंग सोसाइटी है उसे कैसे डेवलप किया जाए? यह सारे प्रावधान मैंने अपनी बुक कमेंट्री ऑन डेवलपमेंट कंट्रोल रेगुलेशन 1991 जिसकी 15 एडिशंस आ चुकी है आई थी वो उसके अंदर हमने मैंने डिस्कस किया है। आगे बढ़ते हैं 1991 के बाद क्या हुआ? इसके बाद 2009 के तहत एक 79 ए का गाइडलाइंस आया। यह गाइडलाइंस थी कोऑपरेटिव सोसाइटी क्योंकि मेजरिटी जो रीडवलपमेंट है वह कोऑपरेटिव हाउसिंग सोसाइटी जो अभी लागू होता है पूरे बंबई में और इसके तहत थर्ड जनवरी 2009 में एक गाइडलाइंस आई वो गाइडलाइंस के तहत रीडवलपमेंट के प्रोजेक्ट्स तैयार करने होते थे मैनेजिंग कमेट को इसके अंदर बहुत सारी कंप्लेंट्स आई कि जो मैनेजिंग कमेट है वह रीडवलपमेंट प्रोसेस में मेंबर्स को कॉन्फिडेंस में नहीं लेती। ट्रांसपेरेंसी नहीं है। आर्बिटरी अपॉइंटमेंट्स होती है। बिजनेस जो होता है वह कंडक्टिंग बिजनेस मतलब कि वह चाहे एजीएम हो, एसजीएम हो तो वो लोग सही जवाब नहीं देते हैं। ऐसे करली बिहेव करते हैं जैसे वो लोग जमींदार है और बाकी के जो फ्लैट ओनर्स हैं वो उनके स्लेव्स है, टेनेंट्स हैं। तो ऐसे भी बिहेव करते हैं और वो लोग वीडियो उतारते हैं तो वीडियो वो लोग शेयर नहीं करते हैं मेंबर्स के साथ में क्योंकि वो अपने पास ही रखते हैं। रजिस्ट्रार में जाते हैं तो वो […]
Read more