Bombay HC sets land title guidelines for multi-building layouts
The Bombay High Court has issued fresh guidelines for land division in redevelopment projects with multiple buildings, ruling that each society's proportionate land entitlement is fixed four months after formation and cannot be reduced by later plan revisions. The court also ordered builders to disc
The Bombay High Court has set new guidelines for land division in redevelopment projects, ruling that each cooperative housing society's proportionate land entitlement is fixed four months after its formation and cannot be reduced by subsequent plan revisions. In a 170-page judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Sandeep Marne said the entitlement would be "crystallised" at the end of four months from the society's formation, with the only exception being when flat purchasers of earlier buildings give written consent to a revised plan.
The ruling, which addresses persistent disputes over land conveyance in layouts with multiple buildings, also directs builders to give adequate notice to flat purchasers when using transferable development rights (TDR). Builders must disclose the potential risk that the society may secure less land than what might be assumed from the built-up area of the building, the court said.
The judgment arose from three petitions filed by societies disputing the land area conveyed to them. The court noted that "difficulties in land division among the societies of multiple buildings in a layout still persist," describing the sharing process as a "hotbed of controversy," particularly where developers attempt to exploit development potential through mechanisms such as loading TDR.
The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) requires builders to facilitate the formation of a society and convey land and title within prescribed timelines. If the builder fails, the mechanism of deemed conveyance allows the society to obtain rights without the builder's cooperation, a provision introduced to address avoidance of conveyance by builders, the court said.
The court also observed a growing preference for gated communities and integrated residential complexes, which can provide better amenities and infrastructure, but said such development suffers when developers do not adhere to disclosed plans and do not convey land to each housing society. It said complications arising from different floor space index (FSI) applicability across buildings or the use of incentive FSI and TDR can be addressed by treating societies as falling into two categories: those constructed based on "originally sanctioned plans" and those constructed on revised plans using TDR.
During the hearing, the court took assistance from advocate general Milind Sathe and amicus curiae senior counsel Pravin Samdani, Girish Godbole and Naushad Engineer, along with counsel Mayur Khandeparkar and Karl Tamboly. Sathe submitted that buyers in buildings constructed using only TDR should be informed accordingly and cannot claim parity with societies in earlier buildings constructed using the original development potential of the land.
