Can a Member Withdraw Consent Already Given for Redevelopment?

The word "irrevocable" is not our description — it is in the regulation. For a cessed building in the Island City, Regulation 33(7), clause 1(a) of DCPR 2034 reads: "The new building may be permitted to be constructed in pursuance of an irrevocable written consent by not less than 51% of the occupiers of the old building." Clause 3 of the same regulation adds that the list of eligible occupants and the area each occupies is certified by the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), and that the irrevocable written consent shall be verified by the Board. So the binding force of a consent in a cessed redevelopment is statutory, not a matter of opinion. This page is general legal information, not legal advice; consult a lawyer about your own facts.

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 33(7) clauses 1(a) and 3, quoted verbatim; Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, s.14(2); Limitation Act, 1963, Article 59.

What "consent" actually means in a society redevelopment

Before you can judge whether consent may be withdrawn, it helps to see that "consent" in a Mumbai redevelopment is not one signature but a chain of decisions. An allottee is the person to whom the new flat is to be allotted — in a redevelopment, that is you, the existing member. Your consent is given at more than one stage:

• The general body resolution — where the members, in a Special General Body Meeting, vote to appoint a developer and approve the Development Agreement (DA), the contract between the society and the builder.
• The individual PAAA — the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement, the personal contract each member signs with the developer setting out the new carpet area, rent during construction, corpus, and timeline.

Both the DA and the PAAA must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Once your vote is recorded and your PAAA is registered, your consent is not a casual promise — it is a documented, registered legal act. That is a large part of why it cannot simply be taken back.

Two different 51% thresholds — know which one applies to you

Committees confuse these constantly, and a developer who counts the wrong 51% has no valid consent at all. They are different denominators, different documents and different certifying authorities.

A cessed building being redeveloped by an occupiers' co-operative housing society can be inside both. In that case you need the 51% of occupiers on the MBRRB-certified list and the 79A meeting procedure. One does not substitute for the other.

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 33(7) clauses 1(a) and 3; directive under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 dated 4 July 2019.

What a valid consent actually looks like

Most consent disputes are won or lost on the paper, not on the argument. Before you sign, and before a committee accepts a consent as counting towards the 51%, check the document against this list. Anything marked "fatal" means the consent should not be counted at all.

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 33(7) clauses 1(a), 2 and 3; Indian Contract Act, 1872, ss.17 and 18.

Counting the 51% correctly

Do this arithmetic yourself, on the MBRRB-certified list, before the committee signs anything. "Not less than 51%" means you round up: with 40 occupiers you need 21, not 20.

Where RERA Section 14 fits — and where it does not

Section 14 of RERA is often quoted loosely in this argument, so be precise about it. Section 14(2) is a restriction on the promoter, not on you. It stops the promoter making additions or alterations to the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications without the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, other than the promoter. It does not say that an allottee is barred from taking back consent. The irrevocability in a cessed scheme comes from Regulation 33(7)(1)(a); in every scheme it also comes from the registered agreement you signed. Use Section 14(2) for what it is good for — stopping a plan change — and it is a strong tool. Our explainer on changing sanctioned plans needs consent sets out that route.

Where the binding force actually comes from

You will hear people say "the courts have held that a minority cannot stall redevelopment". You do not need a judgment for this. Three provisions do the work, and you can cite all three by number:

The practical consequence is worth stating plainly. A member who wants out must attack the consent under one of these heads and file somewhere. A member who simply stops cooperating has not withdrawn consent; he has given the society a cause of action against him. Under Section 27 of the MCS Act, 1960 every member has one vote in the affairs of the society — so before a meeting, check whose name stands first on the share certificate for a jointly held flat, because that decides who is counted.

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 33(7) clause 1(a); Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, ss.27 and 72; Indian Contract Act, 1872, ss.15–19.

What the society must minute — and when

A consent dispute two years from now will be decided on the minute book, the attendance sheet and the video. Committees lose these cases by keeping thin minutes. Minute the following, in this order, and keep the annexures physically attached to the minute book.

Two habits are worth building in. Circulate the draft minutes to all members within a fixed number of days and record any correction received — an uncorrected circulated minute is very hard to attack later. And never record a vote as "passed unanimously" when it was not: an inflated minute is the single easiest thing for a dissenting member to disprove, and it taints the whole record.

Why the 79A process makes your consent hard to undo

Maharashtra tightened the way redevelopment consent is obtained through the directive issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960, dated 4 July 2019. Section 79A lets the State issue binding directions to societies, and this directive lays down exactly how the developer must be chosen. The key safeguards are:

• A quorum of two-thirds of members at the Special General Body Meeting where the developer is selected.
• Approval by not less than 51% of the total membership — a real majority of everyone on the rolls, not just of those present.
• An authorised officer of the Registrar physically present at the selection meeting, which must be video-recorded.
• A 20% bank guarantee from the developer, registration of the DA and PAAA, and no committee member or their relative acting as the developer.

Because your consent is given in a video-recorded meeting supervised by a government officer and then registered, it is very difficult to later claim you never agreed, or that you were tricked in the room. That evidentiary strength is deliberate. You can read the threshold rule in detail on our 51% consent rule page, and the full sequence on the Section 79A redevelopment process guide.

When can consent legitimately be withdrawn or set aside?

"Irrevocable" does not mean unchallengeable. It means you cannot simply take it back — you must attack it, under a named provision, in a named forum. Each row below gives you the ground, the provision to cite and where to file it.

What is not a ground, under any of these provisions: a change of mind, later regret, hoping for a better private deal by holding out, a personal dispute with the managing committee, or simply having been outvoted after a fair procedure. None of these is coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, and none of them is a defect in the meeting.

Source: Indian Contract Act, 1872, ss.15–19 and 19A; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, ss.72 and 91; directive under s.79A dated 4 July 2019; DCPR 2034, Reg 33(7) cl. 3; RERA, ss.14(2), 18 and 31; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s.318.

Fraud, material change and procedural breach, in plain words

Fraud or misrepresentation: If the developer or committee lied about the extra area, the rent, the corpus or the timeline to get your signature, the consent was never freely and honestly given. Where there was a dishonest intention from the very start, that can amount to cheating under Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — the provision that replaced the old Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Proven fraud can undo the consent it produced.

Material change in the terms: You consented to a specific package. If that package is quietly changed — a smaller flat, a reduced payout, a new builder substituted, or an altered sanctioned plan — your original consent does not automatically stretch to cover the new terms. Section 14(2) of RERA is explicit on one part of this: the promoter cannot alter the sanctioned plans, layout plans or specifications without the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, other than the promoter. Where the package itself changes, put the changed terms back to the general body and pass a fresh resolution.

Procedural breach: The MCS Act, your registered bye-laws and the 79A directive set out how notices are issued, how the meeting is held, how votes are counted and how the agreement is executed. If those steps were skipped, the whole resolution may be open to challenge — not just one person's consent. Our guide to understanding your society bye-laws explains these steps in everyday language.

Withdrawing consent is not the same as refusing to vacate

Some members try to stall by simply refusing to hand over their flat, even after a valid decision. Legally these are two different things, and the difference decides who has to file.

• Withdrawing consent means attacking the consent itself — under Sections 15 to 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, or by attacking the meeting under Section 72 of the MCS Act, 1960. The member must file, in the Co-operative Court under Section 91.
• Refusing to vacate is not an attack on anything. It leaves the resolution and the agreement standing. The society then files — a dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960 seeking a direction that the member hand over possession, with an application for interim relief in the same proceeding.

In a cessed 33(7) scheme the arithmetic also matters: the threshold is 51% of the occupiers, so one refusal does not by itself defeat a consent that has already been reached and verified by MBRRB. If your grievance is genuine — unfair terms or a broken promise — raise that specific ground in the right forum. Holding the building hostage does not preserve your rights; it usually costs you them.

Which forum decides a consent dispute, and by when

Sending your objection to the right place matters as much as the objection itself, and every route has a clock. Diarise the deadline the day you decide to act, not the day you find a lawyer.

Consumer Commission — which tier by value

If the consumer route is the right one, the tier is decided by the value of the consideration paid, not by the amount you are claiming.

Filing in the wrong forum wastes months and can get your case dismissed on a technicality, so identify the real nature of your grievance first — is it against the society (Section 91), against the developer (MahaRERA), or about the procedure (Deputy Registrar)?

Source: Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, ss.79A, 91 and 92; directive under s.79A dated 4 July 2019; DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Reg 33(7) cl. 3; RERA, ss.18 and 31; Limitation Act, 1963, Article 59; Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s.69 and the pecuniary tiers as revised with effect from 2021; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss.316 and 318.

What this means for your society

For managing committees: your best defence against a later withdrawal claim is watertight process. Proper written notice, a genuine two-thirds quorum, the Registrar's officer present, a video recording, clearly recorded votes and minutes, and a registered DA and PAAA leave a dissenter little room to argue that consent was invalid. Weak procedure is precisely what gives a member a legitimate opening. Before you lock in a builder, compare the offers on the table side by side with our offer comparison tool, and get the draft agreement checked — our tender and agreement review catches the red-flag clauses that later grow into consent disputes.

For individual members: if you feel misled or the terms have genuinely changed, do not simply refuse to cooperate. Pin down your specific ground — fraud, a real change in terms, coercion, or a procedural gap — and build the file first. A precise objection raised correctly is far more effective than obstruction.

Six documents to demand in writing before you argue about consent

Ask the secretary by letter, keep the acknowledgement, and give a date by which you want them. A refusal to supply is itself useful evidence.

1. The notice of the Special General Body Meeting with proof of despatch and the agenda as circulated.
2. The signed attendance sheet and the certified minutes of that meeting, with the vote count.
3. The video recording of the developer-selection meeting, and the name of the Registrar's authorised officer who attended.
4. The MBRRB-certified list of eligible occupants and the area occupied by each — for a cessed building, Reg 33(7) cl. 3.
5. Your own signed consent letter and the registered Development Agreement and PAAA with the index-II.
6. The bank guarantee furnished by the developer, and the sanctioned plans as approved.

Take these six to a lawyer together. Almost every real consent defect shows up on the face of them, and almost every imagined one disappears. If you are weighing redevelopment for your building, you can register your society for a plain-language view from our team.