Redevelopment of a co-operative housing society in Maharashtra is governed by directives issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Before a developer is appointed, the society must hold clear title to the land — through conveyance or deemed conveyance — call a special general body meeting on proper notice, and obtain quotations from several empanelled architects or project management consultants. Most member grievances arise from a development agreement that was signed before these steps were properly completed.
Redevelopment is the largest financial transaction most society members will ever be party to, and the one they scrutinise least. The proposal arrives with a rendering, a promised carpet area and a corpus figure, and the legal architecture underneath it goes unexamined until something goes wrong.
The framework: Section 79A
The state government has issued directives under Section 79A of the MCS Act prescribing how societies must conduct redevelopment. The 2009 government resolution was superseded by a revised directive in 2019, issued after sustained complaints about members being kept out of the process, opaque tendering, and unequal terms in developer agreements.
The directives cover the sequence in some detail — how a proposal is initiated, how meetings are convened and minuted, how consultants are selected, and what must be placed before the general body.
The sequence, in order
| Step | What the directive requires | Where it goes wrong |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal | At least one-fourth of members apply to the managing committee | Committee acts on its own initiative |
| Meeting called | Special general body meeting convened within days of the proposal | Called late, or informally |
| Notice | Agenda circulated to every member well in advance | Short notice; no acknowledgement kept |
| Consultant selection | Quotations from several empanelled architects or PMCs | One consultant, introduced by the developer |
| Feasibility | Project report placed before the general body | Summarised orally, never circulated |
| Developer selection | Tender process, terms placed before members | Developer chosen before terms exist |
| Agreement | Development agreement executed on approved terms | Signed first, explained afterwards |
Conveyance comes first
A society cannot meaningfully redevelop land it does not own. Where the promoter never conveyed title to the society — extremely common in older Pune buildings — the society must obtain conveyance, or deemed conveyance where the promoter will not co-operate.
The consultant question
The directive requires the society to obtain quotations from several architects or project management consultants drawn from the government or local authority panel. The purpose is to give the society independent technical advice before it is committed to anyone.
In practice the most damaging pattern is a consultant introduced by the prospective developer. That consultant then prepares the feasibility report on which the society relies to select the same developer. The society ends up with no independent view of its own project at the only stage when an independent view is worth anything.
What to read in the development agreement
Almost every grievance we see was already decided, unfavourably, in a document a member signed without advice. The clauses that matter:
- Carpet area entitlement — stated as carpet area with a defined measurement basis, not as a percentage increase or a loose "approximately".
- Corpus and hardship compensation — amount, and precisely when each instalment is payable.
- Transit rent — quantum, escalation over the project period, and what happens if it stops.
- Completion timeline — a defined date, with penalties that actually bite on delay.
- Bank guarantee — its value against the real cost of the project, not a token figure.
- Exit — what happens to the land, the members and the money if the developer abandons the project.
- Dispute resolution — the forum, and whether it is one members can realistically use.
If the process was not followed
Non-compliance with the directives is a serious matter, but it does not follow that every departure invalidates the project. The Bombay High Court has held that these directives are generally directory rather than mandatory — meaning compliance is expected, but a lapse does not automatically trigger consequences such as disqualification of committee members unless the directive says so.
The practical reading for a member: procedural lapses are worth raising early, in writing, while the process can still be corrected. Raised late, as a challenge to a project already under way, they carry much less weight.
The bottom line
Confirm the society's title before anyone talks to a developer. Insist on genuinely independent technical advice. Read the development agreement as the contract it is rather than the formality it is presented as — and get it examined before the general body votes, not after members have moved out.