Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Satellite Garden I Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd., Satellite Tower Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd., Sadguru Complex 1 (AB) Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd., and Sadguru Complex 1 (CD) Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra (through Ministry of Housing) and the District Deputy Registrar of Co‑operative Societies, Mumbai City, together with the Competent Authority that had earlier granted deemed‑conveyance certificates.
  • Background: The four societies occupy buildings A‑1 to A‑5 on Sub‑Plot A of a 55,696.70 sq m land parcel at A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. Original Sub‑Plot A (16855.47 sq m) was later amalgamated to 21,807.18 sq m. Separate applications under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) resulted in three deemed‑conveyance orders:
  • Sadguru Complex 1 (CD) – 31 Oct 2025 (land 2,134.15 sq m + RG share)
  • Satellite Tower – 16 May 2024 (plinth land 4,864.21 sq m only)
  • Sadguru Complex 1 (AB) – 6 Mar 2025 (land 643.81 sq m, less than its plinth area of 959.69 sq m)
  • The orders used the 9 July 2010 Occupation Certificate plan, which incorporated massive slum TDR loading (total permissible BUA 40,343.28 sq m). The petitioners argued that the Competent Authority applied inconsistent yardsticks, ignored the statutory “freezing” principle, and that land entitlement should be based on the layout plan dated 10 March 2005, which reflects only base‑FSI BUA (total 21,587.60 sq m) and no TDR.
  • Extensive submissions were made by the Advocate General (Dr Milind Sathe), senior advocates acting as amicus curiae, and counsel for the societies, focusing on:
  • Statutory duty under Sections 10 and 11 of MOFA and Rules 8 and 9 to convey land within four months of society formation.
  • The concept of “deemed conveyance” as a substitute for a promoter’s conveyance when the promoter fails.
  • The principle that once the four‑month period expires, the society’s land entitlement crystallises (“freezing”) and cannot be reduced by later plan revisions or undisclosed TDR usage.
  • The Government Resolution dated 22 June 2018, which permits conveyance of only plinth and appurtenant area when TDR is used, but the Court held that this is a transitional measure and should not defeat proportionate land division where feasible.
  • Numerous precedents (e.g., Shree Siddharth Construction, Neelkanth Mansions, Marathon Next Gen Realty, Rashesh CHS, Nook CHS, Gala Complex, etc.) supporting the need for proportionate land division based on BUA actually utilised, and the impossibility of allowing developers to reap windfall gains from later FSI/TDR revisions.

Final Outcome

1. The Court set aside the three impugned deemed‑conveyance orders dated 31 Oct 2025 (Sadguru CD), 16 May 2024 (Satellite Tower) and 6 Mar 2025 (Sadguru AB).

2. The applications (Nos. 153/2025, 22/2025 and 138/2023) are remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication.

3. The Competent Authority must obtain a new certificate from architect Mr Aniket Mathakar indicating the land distribution of the entire Sub‑Plot A (21807.18 sq m) based on the base‑FSI BUA figures reflected in the 10 March 2005 layout plan:

  • Satellite Garden I: 11,186.41 sq m BUA
  • Sadguru Complex 1 (AB): 3,126.32 sq m BUA
  • Sadguru Complex 1 (CD): 830.92 sq m BUA
  • Satellite Tower: 5,778 sq m BUA

(Total BUA considered = 20,921.65 sq m).

4. While re‑adjudicating, the Competent Authority must apply the “freezing” principle: land entitlement is fixed as of the expiry of the four‑month period under Rule 9 of the MOFA, i.e., when each society was formed and the Occupation Certificate was issued, and must ignore any later plan revisions that load additional TDR or incentive FSI unless explicit, written consent from the earlier societies is produced.

5. The Court reiterated that the statutory right to convey the promoter’s title is paramount over any contractual clause that attempts to limit conveyance to lease‑hold or plinth‑only interests.

6. No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Deemed Conveyance, Co‑operative Housing, Land Division in Layout Developments