The Bombay High Court overturned three deemed-conveyance orders issued to housing societies situated in a Goregaon development. It directed authorities to freshly determine their share of the underlying land, holding that the loading of Transferable Development Rights onto later buildings had created an inequitable division among societies within the same layout.
On September 16, Justice Sandeep V. Marne issued a ruling in several related writ petitions filed by Satellite Garden I Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and others against Maharashtra. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that land in the layout must be divided on the basis of the built-up area shown in the sanctioned layout plan dated 10 March 2005, rather than a subsequent plan dated 9 July 2010 that incorporated substantially higher Transferable Development Rights.
The petitions were filed by Satellite Garden I, Sadguru Complex 1 (AB), and Satellite Tower Cooperative Housing Societies, all located within a 21,807.18 sq m sub-plot at A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon East. The court found that the Competent Authority responsible for granting deemed conveyance under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act had applied inconsistent methods while dealing with the different societies in the layout.
Satellite Tower received 4,864.21 sq m, matching its plinth area, while Sadguru Complex 1 (AB) got only 643.81 sq m, and Sadguru Complex 1 (CD) received 2,134.15 sq m. The court noted that a government directive limiting land transfer to the plinth and adjacent area in cases involving development rights is only a temporary measure.
Read Also: Wadhwa Group Launches 20:80 Plan for Mumbai’s Solis Tower
The bench clarified that the principle of land division proportionate to utilised built-up area remains fully applicable in layouts involving Transferable Development Rights, provided the rights are distributed across multiple buildings rather than concentrated onto a single structure. Where such proportionate calculation based on built-up area alone is achievable, the court said, the Competent Authority must adopt that approach rather than mechanically conveying only the plinth and appurtenant area to each building in the layout.
The ruling, cited as 2026:BHC-AS:37837, was reserved on August 5, 2026, and announced on September 16. This case highlights a common issue in multi-building developments, where structures built at different times under revised plans use varying floor space, resulting in unequal land shares for societies within the same layout.
The court overturned the three existing property transfer orders and sent the case back to the authority for a new determination of each society’s land share, following the principles outlined in the judgment. This reassessment will be based on the 2005 approved layout plan, with Justice Marne’s decision guiding the authority’s work.
