Buyers Need Not Form Separate Societies For Each Tower In Multi-Phase Project: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 1 April held that while each tower in a real estate development may qualify as a separate “project” under the statutory framework, flat purchasers are not mandatorily required to form separate co-operative housing societies for each tower.

Justice Amit Borkar upheld the formation of a single unified co-operative housing society by flat purchasers despite the project being multi-phased and governed under different statutory regimes, after noting that the developer had failed to act within the timeline window of three months under Rule 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 and four months under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 to register the society. The Court observed:

“The scheme of Rule 9 of the Rules and Section 10 of the Act does not leave any discretion with the developer to act as per its convenience".

The dispute arose out of a Pune-based project named “Gera's Isle Royale” in Bavdhan. Tower-1 and 35 row houses fell under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA), while Towers 2 through 5 were registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

On 14 August 2014, the tenth flat purchaser signed a registered agreement. Under Section 10 of MOFA, this mandated Gera Developers to form a society by 14 December 2014, which they failed to do.

After eight years, 109 out of 155 unit holders, including 21 of 35 bungalow owners, passed a resolution to form their own single society on 7 January 2023.

The process was initiated by Chief Promoter Goraksh Chandrakant Garad, and the society was subsequently registered on 3 and 13 October 2023 by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Gera Developers challenged the registration before appellate authorities and later before the Minister of Co-operation. The Minister restored the society's registration on 17 February 2026, leading to the present writ petition.

The developer argued that separate societies were mandatory due to differing legal regimes and that buyers could not act unilaterally. It also contended that it had already started the process of society formation. The society countered that the developer's eight-year delay entitled buyers to form the society themselves.

The Court sided with the Society. It held that Section 10 of MOFA, the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and Rule 9 of the RERA Rules must be read conjointly, as they impose a clear obligation on the developer to act within time, failing which the allottees can step in.

On compliance, the Court rejected the developer's argument that readiness alone was sufficient, noting that mere emails or preparation of documents cannot substitute statutory compliance.

On society structure, the Court reiterated that Rule 9 of the RERA Rules cannot be read mechanically and permits formation of an apex body. It held:

“Rule 9 also cannot be read in a mechanical manner. The Rule speaks of formation of a legal entity for a building or a wing, but it also recognises situations where there is a layout consisting of more than one building. In such cases, the Rule itself contemplates formation of an Apex Body or federation of societies. This shows that the law is conscious of complex developments where more than one building forms part of a larger scheme. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Rule mandates in all circumstances that each tower must necessarily have a completely separate society, without regard to the overall nature of the project".

It added:

“The formation of society has to be decided by considering the overall development, the existence of common facilities, the intention reflected in the agreements, and the conduct of the parties, along with the statutory scheme".

Regarding majority consent, the Court observed that 109 out of 155 unit holders clearly crossed the required threshold, making their decision to form a single society valid and binding.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the society's registration.

Appearances for petitioner (Gera Developers Private Limited): Advocates Nikhil Sakhardande, Pralhad Paranjape, Manish Kelkar, Nitish Gaiokwad, Saket Tare.

Appearances for respondent (State of Maharashtra & Ors.): Advocates Y.D. Patil, Sandeep Phatak.