Critics allege criminal remedies are diluted to favour developers
The Bill, passed during the recent winter session of the Maharashtra legislature, is being criticised for diluting penalties under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA). Representation pic/istock
The MOFA (Validation and Amendment) Act, 2025, has triggered strong opposition from housing and consumer rights activists, who allege that the changes tilt the law in favour of developers while weakening protections for flat purchasers.
The Bill, passed during the recent winter session of the Maharashtra legislature, is being criticised for diluting penalties under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA). Activists argue that the amendment restricts magistrates’ powers, excludes RERA-registered projects from MOFA’s purview, and effectively removes criminal remedies that flat buyers and housing societies previously relied on, including in redevelopment projects.
Critics also allege that the amendment was pushed through without adequate consultation or debate, and dismantles a 72-year-old legal deterrent that ensured accountability in Maharashtra’s real estate sector.
mid-day had earlier reported the government’s intent to amend the MOFA and published a series of stories on the issue. In an article titled ‘Maharashtra: Debate over MOFA repeal reignites amid builder-housing clash’ dated November 27, the paper highlighted how builders were pushing for repeal, citing the Real Estate Regulation Act, while housing federations warned that such a move could harm flat owners and affect more than two lakh apartment units.
Blow to flat buyers
Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, who has represented flat purchasers in several MOFA cases, said the amendment substantially weakens enforcement.
“The amendment significantly dilutes the magistrate’s powers to impose sentences on erring developers. This is clearly a developer-friendly policy decision taken at the cost of flat purchasers’ rights,” Pimenta said.
He added that earlier, MOFA acted as a real deterrent against serious violations such as failure to execute agreements for sale, delays in handing over possession, diversion of funds, and other statutory breaches.
“The threat of criminal prosecution before a magistrate created fear and accountability among developers. With the present amendment, this powerful remedy has been effectively taken away. Instead of strengthening consumer protection, the State has weakened the enforcement mechanism,” he said.
Pimenta pointed out that there is no equivalent provision under RERA that allows flat buyers or societies to initiate criminal prosecution for such violations. “Many societies and buyers had approached magistrate courts under MOFA. The penal provisions acted as a meaningful deterrent,” he added.
‘MOFA safeguards weakened’
CA Ramesh Prabhu, founder chairman of the Maharashtra Societies Welfare Association (MahaSEWA), said the manner in which the amendment was passed was deeply concerning.
“The draft amendments were never circulated for stakeholder consultation, nor was the Bill debated in the Assembly. By making MOFA inapplicable to RERA-registered projects, the government has diluted well-established legal protections available to flat purchasers,” Prabhu said.
He noted that under Section 13 of MOFA, serious defaults such as failure to hand over flats on time, non-formation of societies, non-disclosure of accounts, and non-conveyance of land and buildings are treated as criminal offences, allowing FIRs against defaulting developers.
“RERA does not cover redevelopment projects, whereas MOFA protected existing members and societies. Although redevelopment projects are registered under RERA for the sale component, removing MOFA now deprives existing members of even this limited protection,” he said.
Prabhu pointed out that over the past decade, around 500 builders have been booked under MOFA out of more than 50,000 developers in Maharashtra. “For 72 years, MOFA has acted as a bulwark against criminal activity in real estate. Honest builders had nothing to fear. This move appears to protect criminal elements in the sector,” he alleged.
Mixed signals
Advocate Shreeprasad Parab, expert director at the State Housing Federation, said the amendment sent mixed signals.
“The decision to retain and strengthen MOFA through the December 2025 amendment is welcome and reaffirms its role as a vital social welfare law,” Parab said, referring to strengthened provisions on deemed conveyance.
He added that extending deemed conveyance to societies formed under RERA-registered projects removes ambiguity and curbs misuse by promoters who delay transferring land and building titles.
However, Parab expressed concern over the dilution of criminal liability under Section 13 of MOFA. “Even if rarely enforced, criminal provisions acted as a strong deterrent. Weakening this accountability risks reducing hard-won rights of housing societies to mere paper protections,” he said.
In favour
Offering a contrasting view, Pankaj Kapoor of Liases Foras said RERA had already brought sufficient accountability.
“Across states, including Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, developers were effectively regulated only after RERA came into force. There is merit in moving towards one unified regulatory regime. With RERA now established, overlapping older provisions should ideally have been repealed in favour of a single, effective statute,” Kapoor said.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
