MahaRERA Declines Jurisdiction Over FSI Misuse Allegations; Dismisses Challenge to Mumbai Redevelopment Project Undercover Editor News Agency | Updated: December 04, 2025 In a significant order clarifying the scope of its powers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to decide disputes related to FSI misuse, illegal construction, or partnership irregularities in redevelopment projects. The authority dismissed a complaint seeking cancellation of the registration of the redevelopment project Abhilash Phase II in Mumbai Suburban, holding that the complainant was not an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The order was delivered by MahaRERA Member Mahesh Pathak, who categorically observed that the complainant lacked locus standi, and the issues raised did not fall within the purview of RERA. Complaint Alleged Illegal Construction, FSI Misuse The matter relates to a complaint filed by Sanjay P. Vohra, who alleged that developer Sanjona Builders had committed multiple violations in the project (Registration No. P51800033199), located in Kurla taluka, Mumbai Suburban. Among his allegations, Vohra claimed that: He therefore sought revocation of the project’s RERA registration under Section 7 of the Act, alleging the project was “tainted with fraud and illegality.” Promoter Says Complaint Not Maintainable Sanjona Builders rejected all allegations and first questioned the maintainability of the complaint. The promoter argued that: The authority noted that the complainant failed to file a rejoinder, leaving the promoter’s objections “undisputed and unchallenged.” MahaRERA: FSI Misuse Not Within Our Authority In its detailed order, MahaRERA held that allegations of misuse or sale of FSI, illegal construction or irregularities by society members fall outside the jurisdiction of the regulator. It stated: “MahaRERA lacks authority under the Act to adjudicate issues relating to the sale or misuse of FSI. Such grievances must be raised before the proper court of law.” The authority further reaffirmed that rehabilitation flats do not come under its regulatory scope as per Section 3(2)(c) of RERA. Revocation Request Also Rejected On the demand to cancel the project’s registration, MahaRERA observed that such action requires clear evidence of violations under the Act. Since the complainant had submitted no documentary proof of any breach, the request for revocation was found to be “devoid of merit.” The complaint was dismissed: Case Details Case Title: Sanjay P. Vohra v. Sanjona Builders Complaint No.: CC12502735 For Respondent: Advocate Bhumika Patel