your final entitlement is legally bound to the certified physical area under active occupancy, as verified and formalised by the BMC in the official Annexure-II (Eligibility List). The developer has no legal authority to decide what constitutes an "illegal old extension" or truncate your area on their own accord.

2) The Bombay High Court has consistently ruled that in cases of redevelopment disputes regarding tenement sizes, the municipal corporation (BMC) must measure and certify the official area under occupation. The developer cannot take the law into their own hands to deduct area based on their internal, subjective classification of an "extension".

you can seek phone consultation in case you need further clarifications

Dear Sir/Madam,

BMC assessment and property tax records are important evidence of your lawful occupation, but they do not automatically guarantee entitlement to 645 sq. ft. in redevelopment. The developer cannot arbitrarily ignore BMC records without supporting legal or sanctioned documents.

You should issue a legal notice and have all relevant documents (assessment extracts, tax records, tenancy records, sanctioned plans, etc.) examined before accepting the proposed area. If required, you may approach the appropriate Court or Authority for appropriate relief.

Saurabh Agrawal

Considering the 1997 extract the area is 475 sq.ft

The additional 170 sq ft is shown in the 2007 -08 assessment 

As per DC regulations only the unit reflecting in the 1995-96 extract is to be considered for rehab 

That's why the builder claims that he has to give you only 405 (it should be 475 if the 95-96 extract showed area as 475)

In any event if the builder allots you 645 sq ft he will get 50% of that area as incentive fsi which he can sell in open market for profit 

So I don't understand why the builder is not supporting you 

Is the BMC survey done ? Is your name and carpet area and unit included in the Annexure 2 list of eligible tenants ? 

I need to see the papers 

This is a classic and very common conflict in Mumbai's redevelopment landscape. Developers routinely try to reduce a tenant’s certified area to cut down on their own rehabilitation liabilities and maximize their free-sale profit margin.

The developer cannot arbitrarily override BMC’s official records, but the exact area you can legally enforce depends strictly on how and when that "old tenant extension" was recorded.

Under Mumbai’s Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR 2034), a certified Assessment Extract / Inspection Extract from the Municipal Corporation (MCGM/BMC) serves as primary, legally admissible evidence of a tenement's existence and size prior to the critical cut-off dates (such as June 13, 1996, for cessed buildings).

If the BMC has been collecting property tax and rent based on636.58 to 645 sq. ft.for decades, that area is recognized by the planning authority. The developer will use the exact same BMC records to claim a higher Floor Space Index (FSI) or incentive benefits from the corporation. Legally, they cannot use your large area to get extra building rights from the BMC and then turn around and tell you your flat is only 405 sq. ft.

The developer is a private entity; they do not have the statutory authority to determine what is legal or illegal space, only the BMC does. If the developer believes your structural layout does not match standard RERA carpet area definitions, they must raise this with the BMC during the verification and certification of the Certified List of Tenants (the Eligible Tenant List). They cannot simply hand you an agreement for 405 sq. ft. and force you to sign it.

You may immediately visit local BMC Ward Office (Assessment & Collection Department). Apply for certified, stamped copies of the 1997 and 2007-08 Assessment Extracts, alongside your lifetime property tax payment logs. Do not rely on loose photocopies. Then you may send a legal notice/written objection to both the Developer and the BMC’s High-Powered Committee / Assistant Municipal Commissioner. State clearly that you are an occupant of a 645 sq. ft. area as per official municipal records and will not consent to any redevelopment scheme that registers your area as less. Attach your certified extracts.

Never sign a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) or a consent letter that explicitly states 405 sq. ft., even if the builder verbally promises to "make it up to you later." Once you sign a contract accepting a lower area.

If the BMC has assessed your property at ~640 sq. ft. and accepted your money for it for over 25 years, the principle of estoppel  applies. The corporation cannot easily claim the area is non-existent, and the builder cannot strip away your rights over regularized square footage.

If the developer threatens to stall the project or leave you out, remember that a redevelopment project on a BMC-acquired or cessed building cannot smoothly progress without resolving tenant eligibility disputes. If they refuse to budge, your recourse will be filing a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court or approaching the MahaRERA authority (if the project is registered) to stall their permissions until your area is correctly factored in.

Based on the facts stated by you, the developer cannot simply disregard the BMC records and unilaterally determine your entitlement. However, BMC assessment extracts and property tax records by themselves are not conclusive proof of title or carpet area. They are relevant and persuasive pieces of evidence, but the ultimate entitlement in a redevelopment project depends upon the original tenancy records, sanctioned plans, acquisition records, and the applicable redevelopment policy.

In your case, the fact that the BMC's own Assessment Extracts of 1997 and 2007-08 record an area of 645 sq. ft., and that property tax has consistently been assessed and recovered on approximately 636.58 sq. ft., is certainly a significant circumstance. It supports your contention that BMC has recognized your occupation of that extent of premises for several years. A developer cannot ignore these official municipal records without cogent evidence demonstrating why they are incorrect.

At the same time, if the developer contends that only 405 sq. ft. constitutes the original lawful tenanted premises and that the balance represents an unauthorized extension or encroachment, the burden would ordinarily lie on the developer or the authority to substantiate such assertion through documentary evidence such as the original tenancy records, acquisition records, sanctioned plans, measurement reports, or other official documents.

Before accepting the developer's measurement, you should insist upon:

• The basis on which the 405 sq. ft. figure has been arrived at.

• A copy of the architect's measurement report.

• The original BMC tenancy records.

• Approved building plans and layout plans.

• Acquisition records and any survey or measurement reports relied upon.

If there is a genuine dispute regarding the area, you should immediately submit a detailed written representation to BMC and the redevelopment authority, enclosing copies of the assessment extracts, property tax records, rent receipts, and any other documents showing continuous recognition of your occupation over the larger area. You should specifically object to any attempt by the developer to reduce your rehabilitation entitlement without adjudication.

If the dispute is not resolved administratively, you may seek appropriate relief before the competent authority or court to have your entitlement determined on the basis of all available records. Until such determination, the developer should not be permitted to unilaterally curtail your rehabilitation area merely by describing part of the premises as an "old tenant extension."

Therefore, while BMC assessment and taxation records do not by themselves create an absolute legal right to 645 sq. ft., they constitute strong documentary evidence in your favour. The developer cannot override those records merely by assertion; any reduction in area must be supported by credible evidence and, if disputed, be decided by the competent authority or court after considering the entire documentary record.

developer can over ride only if there is any illegality in bmc assessment and rules

Dear Client, The BMC assessment tax and tax records so as strong evidence of the area you have been recognized for over decades but they do not automatically grant you an indefensible legal title to that specific square footage in a redevelopment project. In a redevelopment project carpet area is typically determined by the plans approved by the civic authority and the actual measurements on site as defined under the Real Estate Regulation and Development and Local Development Control Regulations. While the BMC tax records validate your possession and the fact that you have been paying dues for a larger area a developer generally relies on the sanctioned building plans and the actual physical measurement of the unit to determine the area to be credited for your new flat.

A developer cannot unilaterally override the BMCS's record but they are technically entitled to verify the actual physical carpet area if there is a discrepancy. Calling your area and old tenant extension is a common thing to minimize the compensation or the new area you are entitled to. However, if that extension has been part of the premises for decades and recognized by the municipal authority for taxation purposes it has acquired a level of legitimacy. You should resist the builder’s attempt to downgrade your area simply by a label if you have been paying rent and taxes for 645 square feet you have a valid claim that this is your protected area and any reduction should be justified by clear verified evidence rather than just a builder’s assertion.

Your immediate action should be to hire a licensed architect or a surveyor to conduct an independent measurement of your current flat to determine the exact carpet area. Simultaneously, do not sign any consent or allotment letter until this discrepancy is resolved in writing. You should also file a formal representation to the housing society and the developer enclosing the BMC tax extracts and proof of your payment stating that your entitlement is based on the area recognized by a civic body. If the developer remains adamant you must approach the RERA authority or the local registrar of Cooperatives to ensure your protected area is formally acknowledged in the redevelopment agreement as your tax history is a powerful piece of evidence. I hope this answer helps, if you have any further query kindly do not hesitate to contact us. Thankyou

Dear Sir,

You are suggested to ask the old record from the builder as to clarify on what basis the builder is claiming less carpet area and as to how the old tenant could encroach/acquiie more area. The record of builder may be in the form of sanction plan and permissions granted by concerned authority. At the same time, ask the BMC regarding more area clarification. The clarification from BMC may be in the form of RTI applicaiton. You will have a clear picture of the controversy after getting the replies from the builder and BMC. Then you may take remedial steps as per law. 

A junior clerical staff member is absolutely not legally competent to regularize your extension or alter your official tenement area.

Any informal cash offer or "help" from a junior employee is unauthorized and illegal. Accepting such assistance risks fraud, loss of money, and no legal protection when formal plans are scrutinized.

The advice you received from the BMC officials to hold back your consent and delay signing the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) / Development Agreement is legally sound.

 Ignore the clerk's solicitation. Unofficial "regularizations" will not reflect in the final Annexure-II signed by the Executive Engineer.

Do not sign any consent form or PAAA that mentions an area lower than what your official records establish until the BMC formally resolves the dispute.

Dear Sir/Madam,

No junior BMC clerk can legally regularise or certify the disputed extension. Only the competent municipal authority can decide it through the prescribed written procedure.

Submit your documents and written objection immediately to the Assistant Commissioner/Estate Department and obtain an acknowledgment. If Annexure-II applies to this scheme, file objections at the draft-verification stage also. Do not pay any unofficial amount or sign consent documents until your area claim is formally decided.

Advocate Saurabh Agrawal

Yes you can

Dear Sir/Madam,

It is suggested that you can submit an application to BMC regarding your all apprehensions and possible misdeed by the builder so that his incorrect plan without your information be not approved by the BMC officials. present application may be treated as caveat. Also, don't get misled by any hacker or employee whose authority might be very limited and his intention might be of making illegal money. In addition to above application, you may submit your evidence when proposal is published in ANNEXURE - II and if ingored, may move a writ petition in the high court.

Dear Sir/Madam,

It is suggested that you can submit an application to BMC regarding your all apprehensions and possible misdeed by the builder so that his incorrect plan without your information be not approved by the BMC officials. present application may be treated as caveat. Also, don't get misled by any hacker or employee whose authority might be very limited and his intention might be of making illegal money. In addition to above application, you may submit your evidence when proposal is published in ANNEXURE - II and if ingored, may move a writ petition in the high court.

dont bow down to builder pressure tactics he is taking you for ride 

2) why should you accept 75 square feet less . 

I want to know under which regulation of DCPR is the redevelopment being undertaken ? 

You need to check the concerned regulation

In most of them only the area which reflects in the 1995-96 inspection extract is considered and any area added later on is disregarded unless you can show by cogent evidence that the additional area existed prior to 95-96 but reflected in the inspection extract only in 2007-8. 

Immediately file a formal dispute with the BMC Assessment Department and Executive Engineer.

Since the developer is relying on their own recent survey to unilaterally reduce your documented 645 sq. ft. area, taking immediate official action with the municipal authority is the most effective lever you have. BMC will not sanction final redevelopment plans if there is an active ownership/area discrepancy on record.

Do not sign any consent letter, draft agreement, or undertaking mentioning 570 sq. ft., even "under protest," unless specifically advised by your lawyer on site. BMC relies heavily on signed consent forms; once submitted, reversing them is exceptionally difficult.

If this is a society redevelopment or a cessed building under MHADA/BMC, you can file a dispute or a Suit for Declaration & Injunction to restrain the developer from executing plans that curtail your rights.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Do not sign any consent letter showing the reduced area. Immediately submit a written objection with all records to the Ward Assistant Commissioner, Estate Department and Building Proposal Department, seeking joint measurement and a written decision before redevelopment approval.

BMC assessment and tax records strongly support your occupation claim, but they are not conclusive if the disputed 75 sq. ft. is proved to be an unauthorised common-passage encroachment. The developer cannot decide this issue unilaterally.

If approvals are processed without deciding your objection, approach the Bombay High Court/Civil Court urgently for appropriate interim protection.

Advocate Saurabh Agrawal

You can file.a writ petition by making BMC and developer a party