If you live in a large residential complex with multiple buildings in Maharashtra, you probably know how stressful getting land ownership can be. You buy your flat, move in, and wait for the builder to transfer the property card to your society. But instead of doing that, the builder stays on the plot for years, brings in extra development rights from outside (known as TDR), and puts up taller towers on whatever open ground is left.
      When the older buildings finally apply for deemed conveyance, they are often told: “Sorry, the new towers used up most of the space, so you can only get the land directly under your pillars.”
    In a landmark decision on September 16, 2026, in Satellite Garden I CHSL v. State of Maharashtra & Others, the Bombay High Court put a firm stop to this practice. Justice Sandeep V. Marne established clear ground rules to prevent developers from using delays and extra construction to cut down an older society’s rightful share of the plot.  

The Dispute: A 29-Year Delay in Goregaon

The case centered on a large residential layout at A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East), Mumbai.

The first building, Satellite Garden I, was finished around 2001 and registered its society in October 2002. It was built using only regular base Floor Space Index (FSI) without any outside TDR. Under Maharashtra law, the builder was supposed to convey the land title within four months of the society forming.

Instead, the project dragged on for nearly 29 years. The developers rearranged the plot boundaries, brought in outside developers, and loaded a massive amount of slum TDR to build new high-rises, including Satellite Tower and Sadguru Complex.

The numbers tell the story:

• Satellite Garden I: Built-up area of 11,186 sq. meters (Zero TDR).
• Satellite Tower: Built-up area of 20,728 sq. meters (Over 14,949 sq. meters was outside TDR).

When societies applied to the Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar) for unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), the authority issued conflicting orders:

• One building was granted land based on its total built-up area.
• Satellite Tower was given only its plinth (the concrete footprint).
• Another society was given even less land than its building’s physical footprint.

All three orders were challenged before the Bombay High Court.

Key Principles Laid Down by the Court

The High Court set aside the inconsistent orders and established four major rules that apply to layout developments across Maharashtra:

1. Land Rights Are “Frozen” in Time

Under Section 11 of MOFA and Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules, a builder has a strict deadline to transfer title: four months from the date the society is registered. The Court ruled that on the day those four months expire, the society’s land entitlement becomes crystallised and frozen. A builder cannot show up ten or twenty years later with new layout plans and claim that the older society now owns less land.

2. Builders Cannot Steal Older Societies’ Land Potential

Because the builder never executed the conveyance, the entire plot remained in the builder’s name on government records. Planning authorities then calculated new building permissions across the whole plot, rather than just the unbuilt portion. This allowed developers to take development potential that rightfully belonged to the older society and load it onto new towers.

The Court held that later revisions to building plans cannot reduce an earlier society’s share unless that society gave prior, specific, written consent. Standard, blanket consent clauses slipped into initial flat purchase agreements do not count.

3. Outside TDR Does Not Give Extra Land Ownership

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) are separate, movable rights that can be bought and sold in the market; they have no inherent legal connection to the land on which they are used. The Court ruled that a builder cannot purchase a large amount of TDR, load it onto a single building in the complex, and then argue that the TDR building owns 50% or 60% of the entire plot. Base plot potential must guide how the layout is divided.

4. Plinth-Only Conveyance Is Rejected

Authorities often try to dodge difficult calculations by conveying only the concrete plinth (the ground directly under the building). The High Court firmly rejected this approach. A building cannot function without side margins, fire access, internal roads, and recreational grounds. The entire layout plot must be divided fairly among the societies instead of leaving open areas under the builder’s control.

Key Takeaways for Housing Societies Applying for Deemed Conveyance

If your managing committee is preparing to file for deemed conveyance under MOFA, keep these important rules in mind:

• Your Society Still Owns Its Plot Even After Years of Delay: Do not let a builder say it is too late to claim your land. Under Maharashtra law, a promoter’s failure to hand over conveyance is a continuing wrong, meaning your legal claim never expires.
• Your Land Share Is Locked Early: Your society’s share in the layout was frozen exactly 4 months after registration. The builder cannot show up with revised plans or new towers from 2015, 2020, or 2024 to shrink your boundaries.
• Never Agree to “Plinth-Only” Ownership: If the District Deputy Registrar (DDR) tries to grant ownership of just the ground under your pillars, use this High Court judgment to push back. Your building is legally entitled to surrounding marginal spaces, access roads, and common garden areas.
• New Towers Cannot Steal Old Societies’ Land: If a developer loaded outside TDR or incentive FSI to construct a high-rise in your layout, that newer building does not get a bigger share of the land at your expense. Land division must be based on original base plans, protecting your building’s future redevelopment rights.