Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In what I will call a 'pure' MOFA Section 11 scenario, a promoter or developer can build only up to the maximum permissible built up area so computed. His development is coupled with a statutory obligation to convey title to those who take up residential units in the building constructed. For this, there is Section 11's waterfall mechanism.

9. The scenario changes radically when we have not a single plot of land, i.e., land with a single land-record identifying number, but a development that is spread out over a large tract of land comprising several or multiple plots. This is increasingly common in and around the city. What comes up on these developments is not a single building, but many of them. There are shared facilities within this entire layout: common roads, shared open spaces, even built recreational facilities such as club houses etc.

18. On 11th August 2004, the developer, the 3rd Respondent, Marathon Realty entered into agreements for sale with individual residential flat purchasers in Marathon Era. The plot itself was said to be owned by 2nd Respondent, Marathon Next Gen. The agreement for sale had several schedules. The second schedule said that the Marathon Era would be built on a part of the larger plot. An area of 6787.82 sq mtrs was to be used to construct all four wings of Marathon Era. The agreement itself contemplated the formation of a condominium of flat owners. Marathon Realty was to give individual flat purchasers the benefit of utilising amenities on the common areas of the larger plot. A copy of the sanctioned layout plan is attached to each sale agreement. This agreement is also called the 'premises ownership agreement'. Recital (ii) describes 18th April 2024 Marathon Era v The Competent Authority & Ors Gulmohar Lokmilan CHSL & Anr v The Competent Authority & Ors wp180-18-J-D+.doc Marathon Next Gen as the owner of what is called 'the larger property'. There is no dispute that the larger property was on land that once belonged to one of Mumbai's now defunct cotton textile mills. Its development was, therefore, governed by Development Control Regulation 58 of the 1991 Development Control Regulations. Recital (vi) contained specific mention of several buildings in the layout and, importantly, that Marathon Next Gen even then had in mind possible amendments to this layout resulting in a possible relocation of 'various areas'. This recital then described the 2003 approved or sanctioned layout with greater particularity. It said, among other things, that there would be recreational area of 1716.90 sq mtrs on a particular portion; another recreational area of 3169.65 sq mtrs above the car park and a commercial building either at the ground or at the elevated levels; and internal roads of 4781.39 sq mtrs (with there waypoints identified), which were to be used by the Marathon Era residents along with other layout occupants. A portion of these roads was reserved for exclusive use by the occupants of Marathon Innova. This was an identified area surrounding the Innova building. Then there was mention of a 7.50 meter width internal road, and open space around the building marked D2 of 1097.70 sq mtrs and an additional 321.37 sq mtrs of open space. The Innova building itself of ground and nine floors was to be built on an area of 4775.88 sq mtrs while the Marathon Era building would, as I have indicated, be built on an area of 6787.82 sq mtrs. Recital (vii) then gave further details of the Marathon Era residential four-wing tower. Recital (xvii) referred to Section 4 of MOFA and clearly said that the premises ownership agreement was MOFA-compliant or as mandated by MOFA. Clause 4 of the 18th April 2024 Marathon Era v The Competent Authority & Ors Gulmohar Lokmilan CHSL & Anr v The Competent Authority & Ors wp180-18-J-D+.doc Agreement defined premises to include the flat and associated parking.

4. The 5th Respondent was or is the owner of the land. The 6th Respondent is the Lok Constructions, the developer. The owner entered into an agreement with Lok Constructions on 30th October 1987. The land is at Chandavali, in Taluka Kurla. It is 20195.80 sq mtrs. The developer was put in possession. It submitted building plans at different dates for a phased development. The scheme was called Lokmilan. Phase I was the construction of two buildings of two wings each. These were to be the Sangam, Lokmilan and Milap Lokmilan societies. These are identified as wings A1, A2, A4 and A5. Construction was completed in 1995-1996. Phase II consisted of one building with six wings. This was the Ekta Society, 2nd Respondent. Wing B1 is not complete. Wings B2 to B6 are part of the Ekta Society. Wing B1 and its occupants have stood apart. Lok Constructions claim that Wing B1 is not complete. Phase III was of one building of three wings constructed in 2005. This is the Petitioner, the Gulmohar Lokmilan society. In the plan it is shown as Wings C1, C2 and C3. This phase was complete in 2005. The Petitioner obtained an OC in that year. Lok Constructions did not subdivide the property into sub-plots. All buildings have been developed on a common or single undivided layout.

82. What the argument overlooks is the submission that the Petitioner made that there cannot be any objection to Deemed Conveyance in favour of federation of a society but there cannot be a conveyance of the entire plot or the common amenities in favour of the other three societies to the exclusion of the Petitioner. Quite clearly, the competent authority failed to appreciate that without arriving at an affirmative findings on sufficient cogent material that the Petitioner society was not a part to the layout, it could not have been excluded from the conveyance. Furthermore, there is no explanation as to how lands already handed over to MCGM could be included in any such conveyance.