The Bombay High Court has quashed CIDCO’s Rs 24.58 lakh transfer charge against Manmandir Cooperative Housing Society in Nerul and related demands against Surya Cooperative Housing Society in Vashi, holding that a 1990 regulatory amendment could not be applied retrospectively to their earlier lease agreements.
The ruling by a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande sets aside the demand against Manmandir and corresponding transfer-charge demands concerning Surya Society. The court, however, did not strike down the regulation or grant a blanket exemption to other housing societies in Navi Mumbai.
The dispute began on October 26, 2016, when CIDCO asked Manmandir Society to pay Rs 24.58 lakh for transfers involving 27 flats. The society challenged the demand, arguing that its lease did not impose an obligation on individual members to pay a transfer charge. The Navi Mumbai Housing Federation and the societies approached the High Court in 2018.
According to the report by Mid-Day, the court examined Explanation iii to Regulation 3(vii) of the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975. The explanation was inserted on February 8, 1990. The bench held that it could not be applied to the two societies’ pre-amendment leases where the relevant obligation was not included in the original agreements.
CIDCO had argued that the charges helped it recover unearned gains when flats on land allotted at concessional rates were resold. The corporation also maintained that the leases were subject to applicable regulations. The court nevertheless held that the amendment could not retrospectively impose a new contractual liability on the two societies covered by the petitions.
The ruling followed a wider request by the Navi Mumbai Housing Federation for relief covering 2,528 societies. That request was not accepted because the federation had not placed the necessary lease documents and particulars before the court. Thirteen societies named in the petition were also excluded from the relief because the exhibits contained only their names.
The distinction is important for housing societies that may face similar demands. Advocate Shreeprasad Parab, expert director of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing and Apartment Federation Ltd, said societies would need to examine their lease documents with reference to February 8, 1990, as well as their byelaws. He also said that further levies on post-1990 plots allotted at market rates would require separate scrutiny.
Bhaskar Mhatre, secretary of the Navi Mumbai Housing Federation, said the federation would write to CIDCO seeking similar relief for other societies and could consider filing a public interest litigation petition. Murlidhar Nair, secretary of Manmandir Society, said the society’s lease did not mention a transfer fee and that members became aware of the demand in 2015 when they applied for conveyance and lease registration.
Ravi Rattesar, chairman of Surya Society, said residents hoped the order would assist other societies facing similar demands. A senior CIDCO official, speaking anonymously, said the corporation had not yet received a copy of the order and that its legal team would examine it before making an official comment.
The order therefore provides direct relief to the two societies but leaves the wider question of transfer charges dependent on the wording of individual leases, the timing of allotment and the documents available in each case.
