Why Mumbai redevelopment stalls: the holdout, the heirs and the missing conveyance

Rules as of 13 October 2026.

A society votes for redevelopment, a developer is chosen, and then the project sits. Three problems come up again and again in Mumbai: a member who will not sign, a flat whose owner has died and whose heirs disagree, and a lease or conveyance that was never completed. Here is what courts and the model bye-laws actually say about each.

1. The one member who will not sign

On 18 June 2026, Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court decided Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Pvt Ltd v. Moon Craft Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 13424 of 2026). The Bandra society, built in 1975, has 38 flats and 7 garages. It resolved to redevelop in December 2021, appointed the developer on 21 May 2023, and executed a registered development agreement on 31 March 2025 with the society and 22 members. The BMC issued the intimation of disapproval on 5 March 2026, and by 24 March 32 members had submitted consenting declarations. Ten respondents tied to seven flats had not.

The court held that a society is a separate legal entity whose general body decisions bind members, and that a member "cannot rely upon his non-signatory status" for redevelopment obligations. It ordered the ten to submit their declarations within four weeks and barred them from selling, mortgaging or creating third-party rights in their flats. But it refused, as premature, to order them out or appoint a Court Receiver. The judgment said the duty to give a declaration and the duty to vacate "cannot be treated as the same thing"; the vacating stage under the agreement needed the full approval, loading of full development potential and a 45-day notice, none of which had happened.

So a holdout can be compelled to sign a declaration and be frozen from selling, yet cannot be evicted until the contract's later steps are met. That gap is a common reason for delay. This is one High Court order on one development agreement. Another society's contract may order the steps differently, so the clause wording decides. Note too that the court refused to decide disputes over development potential and individual objections, leaving them open for the arbitration.

2. Family disputes and the nominee trap

The Model Bye-Laws for co-operative housing societies on the Maharashtra Co-operative Commissioner's site say a member can nominate a person (bye-law 31). On the member's death the society transfers the shares and interest to the nominee (bye-law 33), but the nominee holds the flat "in trust" until all legal heirs are on record. If there is no nominee, the society invites claims by public notice within six months (bye-law 34), and if heirs cannot agree, the committee may ask for a succession certificate. These are the version dated 2 September 2014; bye-law numbering may differ in a society's registered bye-laws.

The Bombay High Court's Division Bench in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Salgaonkar (1 December 2016) is reported to have held that a nominee does not get absolute title and that nomination does not override succession law. I read that only through a law-blog report, so check the judgment itself. For redevelopment it means a flat with four quarrelling heirs may have no one who can validly sign the agreement.

Illustrative cost. Suppose 32 members have vacated and the developer pays each ₹40,000 a month in rent (assumed). That is 32 × ₹40,000 = ₹12.8 lakh a month, or ₹1.536 crore over 12 months. If one unresolved flat holds up the next stage, who bears that cost depends on the agreement, and that is exactly what members fight about.

3. The missing lease deed or conveyance

Under section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 a promoter must convey the title to the society, within four months or the period in the agreement. In Runwal Construction Pvt Ltd v. Competent Authority (Bombay High Court, 16 July 2024, Justice Madhav Jamdar), the promoter had not conveyed for about 14 years. The court also said that an order granting deemed conveyance "does not conclude the issue of title"; a suit can still follow.

On MHADA land, lease papers matter too. In a batch of petitions decided on 2 July 2026 about cluster redevelopment of MHADA layouts, the recitals describe a society holding a 99-year sub-lease from about 1982. Petitioners argued that executive resolutions cannot take away their property rights. I could not read the court's final holdings, so I do not rely on the result.

Stall	What the record shows	What to check
Holdout member	Declaration can be compelled; eviction waits for later contract stages (Moon Craft, June 2026)	Vacating clause and its pre-conditions
Heirs in dispute	Bye-laws 31-35: nominee holds in trust until heirs recorded	Nomination, succession certificate
Conveyance gap	MOFA s.11 four-month duty; deemed conveyance does not settle title (Runwal, July 2024)	Conveyance or lease deed, mutation entries

Why these three keep recurring

All three are paperwork problems that surface late. A holdout appears when the vacating stage nears. An heir dispute appears when the agreement needs a signature on a specific flat. A conveyance gap appears when the developer's lawyers or the bank examine title. Each can be checked on day one, before a general body vote, which is cheaper than arguing in court after a developer is on site.

Checklist before a society votes

• List every flat's registered holder, nominee and any living or deceased co-owners.
• Get the conveyance or lease deed read by an advocate before choosing a developer.
• Check what the development agreement says about declarations and vacating, and in what order.
• Write each dissenting member's objection into the minutes.

This is information, not legal advice.