Court Rejects Ariisto Realtors Appeal Over Vile Parle Society Deemed Conveyance
On July 17, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by developer Ariisto Realtors Pvt Ltd that challenged the deemed conveyance of land and a building to a cooperative housing society in Vile Parle, Mumbai. Justice Sandeep Marne ruled that developers cannot indefinitely delay the transfer of property ownership to flat purchasers to exploit future Floor Space Index (FSI) benefits.
The ruling rejected the developer's challenge against a 2025 order of the Competent Authority. That order had granted a unilateral deemed conveyance of the land and building to the Ariisto Cloud Cooperative Housing Society.
The housing society represents flat owners in the Ariisto Cloud building, a nine-storey structure in Vile Parle comprising 12 residential flats, one commercial unit, and two shops. The society was registered in June 2016 and sought the deemed conveyance after the developer failed to transfer the land and building ownership.
Ariisto Realtors argued that the Competent Authority should not have entertained the society's second application for deemed conveyance after rejecting the first one. The developer also claimed it had a contractual right to utilize additional FSI under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034.
However, Justice Marne rejected these arguments, stating that the Competent Authority did not perform an impermissible review of its earlier order. The court noted that the initial order had explicitly allowed the housing society to file a fresh application once construction was completed.
The court emphasized the statutory duties under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). Justice Marne stated that promoters have a legal obligation to execute a property conveyance within four months of forming a housing society, and they cannot rely on private contractual agreements to delay this transfer.
Furthermore, the court clarified that any additional FSI arising after the conveyance belongs entirely to the housing society, not the developer. Justice Marne criticized the developer's actions, stating that the court would not assist a developer in endlessly exploiting development potential to satisfy a desire for more profits.
