Bombay HC Reinforces MOFA disclosures and sanctioned plans govern conveyance scope
The Developer claims development rights in respect of a larger plot 77,823 sq.mts in Mulund – divided in lay out -1 of 28,502 sq.mts and layout-2 of 49,321 sq.mts.
Layout-2 is further sub-divided in Plot Nos.A, B, C, D, E and F.
Plot No.D of 21,102 sq.mts is at the heart of controversy between the parties.
In 2012, the Societies of flat purchasers of Wing Nos.A to J of Building No.2 had formed Federation of 10 Societies.
In 2014, the Developer further got approved revised plans for Plot D and applied for sub-division as Plot D1 (for building No.1) of 3,200 sq.mts and Plot D2 Building No.2 Wings A to J of 15,402 sq.mts.
By the order dated 26.11.2019, the unilateral deemed conveyance for the entire land in the lay out of 18602.20 sq.mts in favour of Neelam Nagar Building Nos.11A to 11J Cooperative Housing Societies Association Limited (Federation).
The Developer ACME filed civil suit and sought declaration that it is entitled to complete development on the suit plot to the extent of Plot D-1 of 3,200 sq.mts.
Federation filed suit to prevent the Developer from constructing any additional building contrary to the disclosure made to the plot purchasers under Sections 7 and 7A of MOFA.
Both the parties filed interim injunction applications.
Government Resolution dated 22.6.2018 provides that if there are many buildings on one plot and have separate society of each building and if construction of some of them is incomplete, then while making deemed conveyance of completed building, undivided share of occupancy right in the proportion of construction of the building of such society or ground coverage or plinth area, similarly open space, common services, facilities and roads should be given.
HELD that the conveyance of land and building cannot be delayed till all buildings in the lay out are constructed and federation is formed.
In the present case, construction of building no.2 completed on 16.4.2004, whereas, building no.1 is still in-complete.
Mere recognition of a right in favour of Federation to have proportionate portion of land conveyed to it cannot have the effect of negation of right of Developer to complete balance development in the layout, subject of course to the disclosures made to the flat purchasers.
Sections 3, 4, 7 and 7A of MOFA are aimed at ensuring that the developer gives full particulars of the development undertaken and the provisions do not permit the developer to deviate from the same without seeking consent of the flat purchasers. The object is to ensure that the developer is bound by the disclosure made to the flat purchasers based on which they made an informed decision of purchasing the flat.
In this case, the flat purchasers of building no.2 were given full knowledge of another building of 17 flo0rs with 7166.70 sq.mts built up area coming up in the layout.
The question is whether the Developer can be permitted to use higher FSI arising out of DCPR 2034.
The main reason as to why the developers oppose conveyance of any portion of land in favour of completed buildings till completion of the entire development in the layout is because the FSI computations in respect of the lay out are always done on the whole of the land in the layout and this system benefits the developers to a large extent.
HELD that the delay by the Developer in constructing Building No.1 part of the lay out would not result in loss of ownership in the land meant for construction of that building. Such delay would not result in vesting of title in respect of 3200 sq.mts land in favour of the Federation of Housing Societies. The right of Federation of Housing Societies to secure ownership of land cannot exceed the area used for its building.
Bombay HC Reinforces MOFA disclosures and sanctioned plans govern conveyance scope
Equitable Partitioning of the land on layout-based for unilateral deemed conveyance to Housing Society
Judgment dated 4.11.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Interim Application No.4859 of 2025 in Suit No.151 of 2025 of ACME Enterprises and Another Vs. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2) and others with connected matters
