Bombay HC Balances Heritage Rules And Housing Rights In Sai Dham Redevelopment Case
Court Partly Strikes Down Heritage Restrictions On Deemed Conveyance, Citing Safety And Equity For 300+ Mumbai Societies
Mumbai | August 22, 2025: The Bombay High Court has delivered a landmark ruling in Sai Dham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 12876 of 2025), reshaping how heritage designations intersect with redevelopment rights under MOFA.
The court upheld the society’s deemed conveyance but struck down restrictive heritage conditions—marking a critical shift for hundreds of aging societies trapped between safety imperatives and urban conservation mandates.
The Case That Redefined Heritage Balance
Located in Dadar’s heritage precinct, the 90-year-old Sai Dham Co-operative Housing Society faced structural instability flagged in a 2022 audit. After the promoter’s failure to convey title since 1998, the society applied for deemed conveyance in 2023 under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).
While the Competent Authority granted the conveyance in April 2025, it imposed strict conditions:
- Mandatory heritage committee approval before redevelopment,
- Retention of 40% of the original façade, and
- No additional FSI beyond 1.33 under Mumbai’s heritage DCR norms.
The society challenged these as ultra vires—arguing that MOFA grants an unconditional title transfer once the promoter defaults. The residents also claimed that restrictive FSI and façade clauses endangered their lives, given the structure’s near-collapse condition.
The High Court’s Ruling: Title Is Absolute, Restrictions Are Regulatory
In a reasoned verdict, the division bench held that MOFA’s deemed conveyance is unconditional and independent of DCR controls. However, it recognized that heritage regulations can operate post-conveyance to ensure public interest protection—creating a layered legal balance.
Citing Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. vs. Panchali CHS (2010), the court reaffirmed that once a promoter defaults, the conveyance cannot be withheld. Yet, it clarified that reasonable post-title restrictions—such as design approvals—may apply.
Finding the 40% façade retention and strict FSI limits “arbitrary and impractical”, the bench noted that a structural audit showed only 15% façade viability. It endorsed the society’s 20% preservation plan as a proportionate safeguard.
Referring to Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2025), the court emphasized that resident safety must override aesthetic conservation, especially for cessed buildings in fragile zones.
Orders And Wider Impact
The High Court ordered that:
- The deemed conveyance order stands confirmed,
- The 40% façade and FSI cap are struck down, replaced by 20% façade preservation and standard FSI under DCR 33(7),
- The Heritage Committee must process redevelopment approval within 60 days,
- RERA registration must follow within 30 days, with quarterly compliance reports, and
- No costs are imposed, recognizing the public interest dimension.
The ruling highlights the plight of over 300 societies in heritage zones awaiting redevelopment clearances. It underscores that while heritage norms safeguard culture, they cannot jeopardize citizens’ safety or ownership rights.
Why It Matters
This decision sets a precedent clarifying that heritage regulations cannot obstruct conveyance under MOFA but can guide redevelopment design post-title. It provides a legal roadmap for self-redevelopment in heritage areas, ensuring both urban renewal and cultural continuity.
Experts see this as a transformative judgment likely to influence FSI policies, redevelopment approvals, and the future of Mumbai’s aging housing stock.
