Advertisement
The Gulf conflict has disrupted global supply chains, pushed...
REITs have changed the way commercial real estate is owned a...
What does it take to preserve a real estate legacy while bui...
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
The Reconciliator under Goa's Department of Cooperation has directed builder M/s Kurtarkar Real Estates to pay INR 19,74,716 in outstanding maintenance dues for 39 unsold units at the Kurtarkar Landmark complex in Gogol, Margao. The order, passed in favour of the Kurtarkar Landmark Cooperative Housing Maintenance Society, rejected the developer's contention that maintenance liability applies only to sold and occupied units, citing Rule 135(5) of the Goa Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003.
The Reconciliator under the Department of Cooperation, Government of Goa, has directed builder M/s Kurtarkar Real Estates to pay INR 19,74,716 in outstanding maintenance dues for 39 unsold units at the Kurtarkar Landmark complex in Gogol, Margao. The order was passed in favour of the Kurtarkar Landmark Cooperative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd, which had approached the Reconciliator seeking recovery of pending contributions from the developer.
The housing maintenance society, registered in September 2022 and comprising 207 units spread across six blocks, filed the dispute application under the Goa Cooperative Societies Act. According to the society, the developer held 39 unsold units as of July 2023, comprising 22 residential flats and 17 commercial shops, but failed to pay the monthly maintenance invoices issued from April 2024 onward, placing considerable strain on the upkeep of the complex's common facilities.
The developer contested the claim, arguing that it was an independent partnership firm and therefore not a "member" of the society under Section 83(2) of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act. It further contended that the 39 units in question were locked, vacant and unused, and that full maintenance liability would arise only once the units were sold and occupied by buyers.
The Reconciliator rejected these objections, referring instead to Rule 135(5) of the Goa Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003, which makes builders or developers holding unsold units liable to pay maintenance contributions. The order held that this provision does not carve out any exemption based on a unit's non-occupation or locked status, meaning liability attaches regardless of whether the unsold units are in active use.
The developer had also argued that the proceedings were time-barred, having been filed beyond a stipulated three-month window. The Reconciliator rejected this objection as well, holding that the statutory timeline was directory rather than mandatory in nature. In arriving at this conclusion, the order relied on an appellate judgment dated 30 September 2025, as well as the Supreme Court's ruling in Zolba versus Keshao, both of which supported the view that procedural timelines of this kind do not operate as an absolute bar to adjudication.
The ruling adds to a growing body of regulatory and appellate decisions across the country affirming those developers cannot avoid contributing to the upkeep of housing complexes simply because certain units remain unsold. Similar positions have been taken by regulatory authorities in other states, including Gujarat, where the state's Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that promoters remain liable for maintenance charges on unsold inventory from the date a project receives Building Use permission until such units are eventually sold, reasoning that the financial burden of upkeep cannot be shifted onto existing residents who have already taken possession. The Kurtarkar Landmark order reinforces this broader principle within Goa's cooperative housing framework, offering housing societies clearer recourse against developers who retain unsold inventory without contributing to shared maintenance costs.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
