Gaps in Maharashtra's redevelopment policy — and how to protect your society

Maharashtra actually has one of the stronger redevelopment rulebooks in India — the Section 79A directive of 4 July 2019, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and deemed conveyance together give housing-society members rights they simply did not have a generation ago. The real gaps are not missing rights; they are slow enforcement, the quiet way premium and TDR costs shrink your share, thousands of societies that still do not own their own land, delay penalties too weak to change a defaulting builder's behaviour, and a thin, little-quoted regulation for the ordinary non-cessed society. Each of those has a published figure sitting behind it — the 20% bank guarantee under the 79A directive, the road-width FSI bands in Table 12 of DCPR 2034, the 50% ASR premium rate under Regulation 30(A)(6), and the 15%-of-existing-BUA incentive under Regulation 33(7)(B) — and this page gives you all four so you can check a developer's arithmetic instead of trusting it. The good news for your society is that almost every one of these gaps can be closed at the agreement stage — by following the 79A procedure, insisting on RERA registration, sizing the bank guarantee correctly, and appointing an independent project management consultant (PMC) and lawyer who answer to you, not to the developer.

What we mean by a "gap" in redevelopment policy

A gap is not the same as a missing law. In almost every case the rule exists — the gap is the distance between what the rule promises on paper and what a member can actually enforce quickly and cheaply when a project goes wrong. A completion deadline you cannot enforce for two years is a gap. A conveyance right you never exercised is a gap. A penalty that is cheaper to pay than to obey is a gap. Understanding this distinction matters, because it tells you exactly where your own committee has to do the work that regulation alone will not do for you.

There is also a structural reason these gaps persist. Co-operation is a State subject: in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) the Supreme Court struck down the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 in so far as it applied to State co-operative societies, holding that Parliament could not legislate a uniform national code for them without ratification by the States. So the framework that governs your society is a patchwork of State directives, planning regulations and a central real-estate law — strong in parts, but not seamlessly joined up. That is where careful drafting steps in.

Gap 1 — Good timelines, slow enforcement

The 79A directive is unusually specific about time. The shortlisted developer must complete the building within two years of the plinth commencement certificate (CC), extendable to three years only in exceptional cases, and must furnish a bank guarantee equal to 20% of the project value. RERA reinforces this: under Section 18, if the promoter fails to hand over possession by the agreed date, allottees can demand a refund with interest or, if they choose to continue, interest for every month of delay.

The gap is what happens next. Neither the directive nor RERA automatically removes a non-performing builder or hands the site back to the society. Your realistic routes are a MahaRERA complaint, an action on the development agreement, or a dispute before the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960 — all of which take time while members keep paying for rented accommodation. The policy gives you the right to be finished on schedule; it does not give you a fast button to press when you are not. Read what to do when a builder delays for the practical sequence of steps.

Gap 2 — Premium and TDR costs quietly shrink your share

Mumbai redevelopment runs on extra buildable area. Under DCPR 2034 (the Development Control & Promotion Regulations 2034 for Greater Mumbai), that area comes from a mix of the base floor space index (FSI), fungible compensatory FSI, Transferable Development Rights (TDR), a road-width-based FSI table and — for cessed or old buildings — the incentive-FSI schemes in Regulation 33(7), 33(7)(A) and 33(7)(B), with cluster schemes under 33(9) and slum rehabilitation under 33(10). (Regulation 33(14) deals with shifting cattle sheds outside Greater Mumbai; it is often miscited as the slum provision, which tells you how loosely these numbers get quoted.) The developer pays premiums to the planning authority to unlock much of this.

Here is the gap: policy decides how the area is created, not how generously it is shared. When Ready Reckoner rates, TDR prices or premiums rise, the developer's cost of generating the saleable area rises too, and that pressure is routinely passed back to members as a smaller carpet-area increase, a thinner corpus, a lower rent, or a longer sale period.

But the creation side is not a mystery. It is published. Table 12 of Regulation 30(A) sets total permissible FSI almost entirely by the width of the road your plot abuts, and most committees have never seen the table — so the first figure a developer says out loud becomes the figure everyone works from. These are the sanctioned bands:

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 30(A), Table 12. The figures are total permissible FSI, i.e. basic FSI plus the premium and TDR components.

Two details in that table decide real money, and both are routinely got wrong. First, the sanctioned table reads "less than 9 m" for the lowest band and "9 m and above" for the next — so a road measuring exactly 9.00 m sits in the higher band. In the suburbs that is the difference between FSI 1.00 and 2.00. Anyone who writes "up to 9 m" has put the boundary on the wrong side, and 9 m is one of the commonest nominal layout widths in Mumbai. Second, many summaries still circulate the draft thresholds of 12.20 m, 18.30 m and 30 m — imperial carry-overs of 40, 60 and 100 feet that were replaced on sanction by the round metric figures of 12.00 m, 18.00 m and 27 m. A 12.00 m road read against the draft table falls a band short: 2.00 instead of 2.20 in the suburbs.

If your plot really does sit on a road below 9 m, that is not necessarily the end of the matter. DCPR 2034 carries a standing note under Regulation 19 (Public Street and Means of Access): "MCGM shall convert all roads of width less than 9 m to 9 m and above as per site condition through MR&TP Act or MMC Act." That is a duty cast on the corporation, not a right you can enforce overnight — but it gives a society on a 6 m or 7.5 m road something specific to write to the ward office about, and the 9 m step is the largest single FSI jump anywhere in Table 12: 1.00 to 2.00 in the suburbs, 1.33 to 2.00 in the Island City.

The base of that calculation is a gap of its own. Under Regulation 30(A)(2) permissible FSI is worked out on plot area excluding DP roads, land under a sanctioned Regular Line, Regulation 16 and Regulation 14 amenity plots, and Regulation 17 reservations to be surrendered. So the land you hand over shrinks the base you are paid on. What you get in exchange is that FSI equivalent to TDR under Table 12A of Regulation 32 may be allowed, over and above the Table 12 permissible FSI, in lieu of the road land surrendered. That TDR is a separately valuable asset. If the development agreement is silent about who keeps it, it accrues to whoever is developing the plot — so name it in the agreement.

Then the premium itself. Under Regulation 30(A)(6) additional FSI on payment of premium is charged at 50% of the ASR land rate for FSI 1 in the year the FSI is granted. It is not 60% — that figure belongs to the draft and to a pre-DCPR notification, and quoting it overstates the developer's cost by a fifth. An overstated cost is the standard argument for a smaller offer to members, so this one correction is worth checking line by line in any feasibility statement a developer hands you. The premium collected is then shared 25:25:25:25 between the State Government, MCGM, MSRDC and the Dharavi Authority. None of those four is your society. The money your plot's extra FSI generates leaves your neighbourhood entirely — which is precisely why the members' share has to be negotiated into the agreement rather than expected from the policy.

Because the bands are published, you can check a developer's opening claim yourself before you negotiate. Model your own numbers with the FSI calculator and the additional area calculator first, so nobody can understate what your plot can generate.

Gap 3 — Thousands of societies still don't own their land

Under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), the promoter who built your original building was legally obliged, under Section 11, to convey the land and building to the society. Many never did. The remedy is deemed conveyance under Section 11(3), obtained through the Competent Authority — the designated District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies — who can execute the conveyance in the builder's place. Once executed, the instrument must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 to create a valid title in the society's name.

The gap is that the law provides the remedy but does not apply it for you: the society has to file for deemed conveyance and see it through. Redeveloping on land you do not legally own weakens your negotiating hand, complicates approvals and can stall the whole project. Treat conveyance as step one, not an afterthought — our conveyance and deemed conveyance guide explains how to start. Note too that at the individual level, when you eventually buy or sell, Section 194-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the buyer to deduct 1% TDS where the consideration or stamp-duty value is Rs 50 lakh or more — a reminder that clean title paperwork has tax consequences downstream.

Gap 4 — The money-protection gap

RERA created a real safeguard for buyers' money: under Section 4(2)(l)(D), a promoter must deposit 70% of the amounts realised from allottees in a separate scheduled-bank account, to be withdrawn only in proportion to construction completion and certified by an annual chartered-accountant audit within six months. That keeps a developer from spending your project's money on another site.

Two gaps remain for societies. First, RERA registration itself is not universal: Section 3(2) exempts projects on land up to 500 square metres or with up to eight apartments, so a small redevelopment may fall outside the full RERA net — you then rely almost entirely on your agreement. Second, the 70% rule protects flat buyers' money, not directly the society members' rehab component; your protection there is the bank guarantee and the registered agreements. It is worth knowing that RERA's own definition of "promoter" in Section 2(zk) expressly includes a primary co-operative housing society which constructs apartments or buildings for its members — so a society redeveloping on its own account is a promoter under the Act, with a promoter's registration and disclosure duties, not a bystander. Confirm your project's RERA position early rather than assuming it is covered, and ask for the MahaRERA registration number in writing.

Gap 5 — The ordinary society's own route is the thinnest one

Almost all the attention in Mumbai redevelopment goes to cessed buildings under Regulation 33(7), MHADA layouts under 33(5) and slum schemes under 33(10). But most of Mumbai's co-operative housing societies are none of those. They are ordinary, non-cessed, self-owned buildings, and the regulation written for them is Regulation 33(7)(B) — "Additional FSI for Redevelopment of existing residential housing societies excluding buildings covered under regulation 33(7) and 33(7)(A)". If your society is not cessed and not on MHADA land, this is your clause, and you should be able to quote it.

Here is what it actually gives, and it is a number your committee can compute this evening from the existing building plans. Where existing members are re-accommodated on the same plot, 33(7)(B) allows incentive additional built-up area of 15% of the existing BUA, or 10 sq m per tenement — whichever is more — without premium. Two conditions attach: existing members must be re-accommodated (clause 3), and the building must be thirty years of age or more (clause 4).

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 33(7)(B), clauses 1, 3 and 4.

The procedural output. The regulation also defines exactly how your building's age is proved, so there is nothing left to argue about. The Explanation to 33(7)(B) fixes age as on the 1st of January of the year in which the complete redevelopment proposal is submitted to the Commissioner, counted from the date of the Occupation Certificate — or, alternatively, from the first date of assessment in the property-tax record held by MCGM. A great many old society buildings have no traceable OC. If yours is one of them, write to your ward office now for a certified extract of the earliest property-tax assessment entry for the building, and keep it in the society file. That single document can decide whether you qualify under 33(7)(B) at all.

Two further clauses belong in your agreement. Clause 7 makes the fungible compensatory area under Regulation 31(3) free of premium on your existing authorised BUA, while premium is charged on the fungible taken over the incentive BUA — so insist the developer's costing shows those two separately instead of merging them into one premium line. And the proviso to clause 1 says that if the existing authorised BUA plus that incentive still falls short of the Table 12 permissible FSI, the society may avail additional FSI on payment of premium or TDR up to the permissible limit. The regulation names the society as the one who may avail it, so the agreement must say plainly who pays that premium and who receives the area it buys.

Now the sharp edge of this gap. Table 21 of Regulation 44 sets off-street parking. It carries a proviso that halves the residential parking requirement for redevelopment under Regulations 33(5), 33(6), 33(7), 33(7)(A), 33(9), 33(9)(B), 33(10), 33(10)(A), 33(11)(A), 33(15) and 33(20)(A). 33(7)(B) does not appear on that list. An ordinary society therefore builds parking at the full rate:

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 44, Table 21, Sr. No. 1 and its proviso.

Read across those rows: an ordinary society provides exactly double the parking that a cessed neighbour on the same street provides for the same flats. That is podium levels and basements, paid for out of the same project, and it lands on the members as less saleable area to fund their carpet gain. It is a verifiable asymmetry written into the regulation, not a grievance — and the honest use of it is to ask your architect, before you compare offers, how many parking levels your scheme carries and what they cost. If a developer prices your project as though it were a cessed scheme, the offer will not survive approval.

The gap, and the protection that closes it

The 79A directive — your strongest ready-made shield

The Government of Maharashtra's directive under Section 79A of the MCS Act, 1960, dated 4 July 2019 — which superseded the earlier 3 January 2009 directive — lays down a transparent, member-protective procedure. Because these thresholds are law, not custom, a committee that follows them is largely protected from allegations of bias, and every member gets a documented voice. The key numbers are worth memorising:

For a cluster or federation route, the directive requires the 2/3 quorum and 51% approval per society, plus not less than 60% of all affiliated members overall. Our step-by-step walkthrough is in the 79A process guide.

A worked example: sizing the protection

Suppose a mid-sized society has a project value of Rs 60 crore. The 79A directive entitles the society to a bank guarantee of 20% — that is Rs 12 crore of real, encashable security, sized to the project rather than to a token penalty figure. Insist that the guarantee's validity extends comfortably beyond the promised completion date, because a guarantee that lapses on the very day the builder is late is worthless.

Now overlay the timeline. If the plinth CC is issued in, say, March, the 79A clock means possession is due within two years, and the registered PAAA should record that date and the monthly rent. If the developer overshoots, RERA Section 18 lets members claim interest for the delay period on top of contractual rent — and the bank guarantee is there to encash if things go from delay to default. Note that a change to the sanctioned plans midway is not the developer's call alone: Section 14 of RERA bars altering approved plans without the consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, and Section 14(3) makes the promoter liable to repair structural defects notified within five years. Each of these is a specific, citable lever your agreement should reference explicitly.

What this means for your society

Read together, the message is simple: the policy sets the outer rules, but your agreement decides how well those rules protect you. Five disciplines close almost the entire gap.

1. Establish your three numbers before you talk to anyone

Get the abutting road width measured and certified, so you know which Table 12 band you are in and whether the 9.00 m line works for or against you. Take the existing authorised built-up area off the approved plans, so you can compute the 33(7)(B) incentive — 15% of existing BUA or 10 sq m per tenement, whichever is more. And fix the building's age from the Occupation Certificate, or from the earliest property-tax assessment entry if there is no OC. Those three figures — road width, existing BUA, age — decide most of what any developer can offer you, and a committee that already knows them cannot be talked down from them.

2. Run the 79A procedure by the book

Proper requisition, quorum, 51% approval, the Registrar's officer at a video-recorded selection meeting, and a developer with a genuine MahaRERA track record. This is your process shield.

3. Register everything and confirm RERA

The DA and every PAAA must be registered; confirm the project's MahaRERA registration number before construction starts rather than accepting "it is being processed". Registration under the Registration Act, 1908 is what makes your rights enforceable against third parties.

4. Appoint an independent PMC and lawyer

Both must be engaged by, and answerable to, the society — never recommended by the developer. This is where vague area definitions, one-sided force-majeure clauses and weak penalties are caught. Learn the warning signs in our guide to red flags in a development agreement, and compare rival proposals fairly with the offer comparison tool.

5. Keep a paper trail and know your remedies

If things go wrong, your routes are MahaRERA (delay, defects, disclosures), the Co-operative Court under MCS Section 91, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for deficiency of service. Where an office-bearer or middleman commits outright fraud, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 applies — Section 318 for cheating and Section 316 for criminal breach of trust (punishable up to five years). Knowing the remedy exists keeps a wavering developer honest.

A fair overall picture

None of this means the system is broken. Maharashtra remains one of the more progressive states for housing redevelopment, and the reforms have genuinely strengthened the members' hand — the 79A procedure, MahaRERA oversight and deemed conveyance did not exist in this form a generation ago, and older confusions such as VAT and service tax on under-construction flats were folded into a single GST regime in 2017. The gaps that remain are largely about the speed and cost of enforcement and about how fairly the extra area is shared — not the absence of rights. A well-prepared society that uses the protections above turns paper rights into real outcomes.

Where to find the official rule

Always read the source before you rely on any summary. The Section 79A directive and co-operative rules are published by the Government of Maharashtra's Co-operation, Marketing & Textiles Department; Government Resolutions generally appear on the state portal. MahaRERA registrations and orders are searchable on the MahaRERA website, DCPR 2034 provisions (including the Regulation 33(7) family of schemes) run through the planning authority and MHADA, and TDS and capital-gains rules sit on the Income-tax Department's e-filing portal. Because these portals reorganise their pages from time to time, search by the document title, GR subject or registration number rather than an old link, and confirm you are reading the current version.