From Flat ownership to Land Ownership

THE EMERGING VERTICAL PROPERTY CARD IN MAHARASHTRA AND ITS COMPARATIVE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK

Maharashtra is on the verge of a landmark reform in urban property governance with the introduction of the Vertical Property Card (VPC) a new digital property record designed to reflect flat-wise ownership and land share for individual apartment owners. Under the current system, official land records (such as the 7/12 extract and property cards) list only the land-holding entity typically a cooperative society or developer leaving flat owners without direct recognition in government land registers. The proposed VPC will document the flat owner’s name, carpet area, exact share of the underlying land, and encumbrances, thereby bringing clarity and transparency to vertical property ownership in cities across Maharashtra. An eight-member government committee has been constituted to draft detailed Vertical Property Rules to enable this initiative, with the aim of simplifying property transactions, reducing disputes, and strengthening confidence for buyers, financial institutions, and developers. Once notified, the VPC framework is expected to be rolled out in phases across the state, making Maharashtra one of the first Indian states to institutionalise unit-wise ownership records in its official land-record system.

India’s urban housing market is overwhelmingly vertical, yet its land-record system remains rooted in a two-dimensional, plot-based framework that insufficiently captures the rights of apartment owners. Maharashtra’s proposed Vertical Property Card (VPC) represents a pioneering attempt to enter unit-wise ownership information including land share, carpet area, and encumbrances into the record of rights under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. This paper situates the VPC in India’s fragmented property-record ecosystem and compares it with established international models like US condominiums, UK commonhold, Australian & Singaporean strata, and Chinese condominium law. The aim of this article is to equip younger lawyers with a doctrinal, structural, and comparative understanding of apartment titling systems globally, while assessing whether the VPC can meaningfully reform India’s property market.

I. Introduction

India’s real estate jurisprudence is built upon a persistent contradiction: the majority of urban Indians live in multi-storey, multi-owner buildings, but the formal land record still primarily recognises only the ground beneath these structures and the name of one consolidated landholder; usually a developer, landlord, or co-operative society. Apartment ownership, despite being legally recognised through the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAOA), the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), remains functionally invisible in the underlying land records.

Maharashtra’s proposed Vertical Property Card seeks to resolve this structural invisibility by introducing a unit-wise Record of Rights, integrating the flat, its land share, its area, and its encumbrances into the revenue records. If implemented successfully, this would be India’s first systematic attempt to create three-dimensional ownership documentation within the land-recording system.

Globally, modern jurisdictions long ago adopted robust frameworks like  condominium, commonhold, strata, or unit titles that embed apartment ownership directly into the land registry with clear shares, association rights, and conclusive title. This paper analyses whether Maharashtra’s VPC can move India closer to these international standards.

II. The Indian Problem:

Apartment Owners Who Own Everything Except the Record

A. Indian Land Title System is Presumptive, Not Conclusive

Indian land ownership is typically evidenced by registered sale deeds, record-of-rights (such as the 7/12 extract, Index II), tax receipts, and possession. However, none of these ensure conclusive title. The government does not guarantee the accuracy of the register, and the buyer must conduct due diligence. As the PRS India report notes, “land records in India are presumptive and not conclusive.”

For example, in Maharashtra, the land‐revenue register (the 7/12 extract in rural areas) is merely a contemporaneous snapshot of rights and liabilities, but does not bindingly determine ownership disputes.

B. Apartment Ownership in Maharashtra: A Patchwork

Younger lawyers must understand that apartment ownership is not uniformly dealt with in Indian law.

In Maharashtra:

• MOFA governs builder obligations until handover

• MAOA defines apartments as heritable, transferable property with undivided interest in common areas (see MAOA, s. 4 & 6)

• Co-operative Societies Act and housing society frameworks operate for many multi-storey buildings

• RERA mandates disclosures and transparency but does not itself change land records

Thus, apartment owners rely on a bundle of private documents (agreement for sale/Sale Deed, Index II, society share certificate) but their individual shares are not entered in the core land-revenue register.

C. The “Undivided Share of Land” (UDS) Problem

The notion of UDS (undivided share) is widely used in sale agreements and society records. Under MAOA, the undivided interest in common areas is defined value-wise. But that UDS is typically not reflected in the land revenue record or property card. Thus the real estate practitioner often deals with a scenario where:

• The deed says the flat owner has X % share of land

• The land record shows only the society or developer

• The purchaser cannot verify the UDS share via the official revenue-record system

This creates opacity in title, makes redevelopment prone to disputes, complicates bank finance, and hinders resale and inheritance.

III. The Vertical Property Card in Maharashtra

A. What the VPC Proposes to Do?

According to press reports and official statements, the Vertical Property Card (VPC) aims to include:

1. Name of the flat owner

2. Carpet/built-up area of the flat

3. Exact land share (for example 1/120^th)

4. Encumbrances i.e., bank loan/mortgage/lien details

5. Linkage to the main property card/land parcel record

6. Digital authentication: QR code + digital signature

The VPC thereby turns the property card from a single plot entry into a unit-wise entry, analogous to a 3-D cadastre.

B. Legal Basis

The VPC is expected to be notified through rules under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC).  The Code (Act No. XLI of 1966) is the foundational statute for land / land-revenue matters in Maharashtra. The proposed “Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights and Registers for Apartments and Buildings Rules” will enable entry of individual apartments into the land-revenue register.

Thus, the State is effectively attempting to overlay the apartment ownership model onto its revenue register framework, an ambitious reform.

C. What the VPC is Not (Yet) or limitations.

While the VPC promises significant reform, younger lawyers must recognise key limitations:

• The MLRC tradition prescribes record of rights, not conclusive title. There is no existing provision for state-guaranteed indefeasible title for apartments in Maharashtra.

• Unless the Rules explicitly provide for state indemnity/guarantee, the VPC will remain strong evidence but not immune to challenge.

• The transition plan (existing buildings, legacy societies) will be complex; the status of older buildings not converted under MAOA/MOFA remains unclear.

Therefore the VPC should be viewed as a first step toward modernisation and not as identical to Torrens-style title or full strata title regimes.

IV. Comparative Global Regimes:

How Mature Systems Record Apartment & Land Interests

A. United States – Condominium Title & Common Interest Ownership

Legal Structure

Under the Texas Property Code (Uniform Condominium Act) a “condominium” means real property comprised of units and common elements. Section 82.003 defines “allocated interests” as the undivided interest in common elements, common expense liability and votes in the association.

There is also the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA) – a model law adopted by various US states, which governs condominiums, planned communities and cooperatives.

Key Features

• Ownership of exclusive unit (air-space), plus undivided share of common elements

• Unit owners’ association (HOA) mandatory

• Encumbrances (mortgages, liens) recorded at unit level

• Title is recorded in land register / public records

• Lender confidence derived from clarity of unit boundary, voting rights, common expense liability

Relevance to Maharashtra

The US model shows how unit-wise registration, clear share allocations, and association governance can support a robust real-estate finance and redevelopment market. The VPC echoes this structure but the US approach also incorporates strong enforcement of association liens and statutory protections for lenders.

B. United Kingdom – From Leasehold to Commonhold

Historical Context

Most flats in England and Wales are held on long leaseholds, giving rise to issues such as escalating ground rents, service charge disputes, and limited control. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, 2002 introduced commonhold: each unit is freehold, the common parts are owned by the commonhold association.

Recent Reform

In 2025, the UK government announced intentions to abolish leasehold for new flats and make commonhold the default form of ownership.

Relevance to Maharashtra

The UK experience demonstrates the importance of freehold title for units, association ownership of common parts, and modernising legacy systems. Maharashtra’s VPC is akin to inserting a “unit-freehold record” into the register—but lacks full freehold guarantee and association governance integration thus far.

C. Australia & Singapore – Torrens Strata Title (Global Gold Standard)

Torrens Title

Countries like Australia and Singapore operate under the Torrens system, which provides state-guaranteed title, a compensation mechanism, and indefeasibility of registration.

Strata/Strata Title Framework

In Australia, under strata legislation, each apartment (lot) and common property are recorded with separate titles, each lot having unit entitlement (percentage share) for common property and voting. Singapore’s Land Titles (Strata) Act, 1967 (LTSA) enables subdivision into strata lots, each with separate title and defined share in common property. 

Relevance to Maharashtra

This model closely matches what the VPC aims to achieve: individual titles + share in common parts + clear governance. However, the key distinction lies in title guarantee and how the register is legally binding. Maharashtra must consider that aspect if full benefit is to be realised.

D. China – Condominium Rights Under State Land Ownership

Under the Property Law of the People’s Republic of China, 2007 (Article 70), residential units are “special parts” and owners have exclusive rights over them; they also share common parts of the building. Land remains state-owned or collectively owned, and use rights are time-limited. Nonetheless, China manages a large apartment ownership market with unit-wise registration and homeowners’ associations.

Relevance to Maharashtra

China’s need to retrofit a condominium regime onto older buildings, and its scale of vertical housing, are very comparable to India’s challenge. The Chinese system shows how unit-wise rights and governance frameworks function in a massive urbanised state.

E. Comparative Law Table

Jurisdiction Legal Framework Unit Title? Undivided Share Recorded? Title Guarantee? Association Governance

USA (Texas etc.) Uniform Condominium Act / UCIOA Yes (unit + air space) Yes (allocated interest) Mostly no Torrens; but clear record Yes, mandatory HOA UK Commonhold / leasehold reform Freehold units in commonhold Yes, parts owned by association Varies; still evolving Yes, commonhold association Australia/Singapore Strata title + Torrens Yes (separate strata lot) Yes (unit entitlement) Yes (state-guarantee) Yes, owners corporation China Property Law + registration Yes (special part) Yes (joint ownership of common parts) Land use rights limited term Yes, homeowner associations.

Maharashtra (Proposed VPC) MLRC + proposed VPC Rules Yes (unit share recorded) Yes (share in land) Not yet clearly guaranteed Society/association model exists

V. Evaluation of the VPC Against Global Benchmarks

A. 3-D Identification of Units & Shares

The VPC moves toward recording unit-wise rights and shares within what historically has been a two-dimensional (plot) register. It thereby improves transparency. However, unlike strata systems in Australia or Singapore, Maharashtra does not yet have a full three-dimensional parcel register with unique identifiers for each unit.

B. Conclusiveness of Title

In Australia and Singapore, Torrens guarantees provide indefeasibility of title. In contrast, India’s MLRC regime remains presumptive: registration and property cards are evidence, but not conclusive of ownership. The VPC, unless enhanced, will retain that non-indefeasibility character. Unless the State introduces a Guarantee Fund or indemnity scheme, the VPC will not reach the legal certainty of Torrens systems.

C. Encumbrances and Association Liens

Modern systems integrate unit-level encumbrance records and allow associations to register liens. The US model permits association assessments to become unit-liens. For the VPC to align with global best practice, it would need to allow housing society dues, redevelopment charges, municipal taxes and mortgages to be recorded unit-wise and enforceable against each VPC.

D. Redevelopment & Finance

One of the key motivations for VPC is simplifying redevelopment and accessing bank finance. The clarity of title and share will aid banks and developers. However, unless the record is reliable and trusted, banks may still hesitate. Internationally, lenders rely on unit-level titles and clear association governance; India must build that trust gradually.

E. Legacy & Transition Challenges

Updating the millions of existing flats and societies (many of them older than MAOA conversion, or under informal arrangements) is a massive administrative challenge. Comparative experience (for example in Singapore or Australia) shows that transitioning legacy stock is often the slowest part of reform. Maharashtra must design a robust objection/verification mechanism, and avoid creating “dual registers” that cause more confusion.

VI. Key Doctrinal & Practical Challenges

A. Normative Hierarchy of Documents

What happens if the VPC entry conflicts with a registered sale deed, with society records, or with RERA declarations? Without a clear statute declaring the primacy of the VPC entry, the risk of disputes remains. Younger lawyers must monitor how the Rules handle conflicts.

B. Retrospective Conversion for Existing Stock

India’s record-reform history teaches that migrating legacy titles and building conversions is complex and slow; any gaps will be exploited. Clear timelines, transitional safeguards, and outlay of implementation costs will be crucial.

C. Litigation & Encumbrance Risk

If a flat owner obtains a VPC but fails to record an encumbrance (mortgage, lien for society dues), subsequent third-party rights may still challenge the VPC holder’s rights unless registration systems catch up. Will courts afford VPC holders a presumption of ownership?

D. Society vs. Condominium vs. Company Structures

Maharashtra has a mix of co-operative society-controlled buildings, MAOA conversion projects, developer-owned company-title buildings. The VPC Rules must cater to all three. If inadvertently applied only to MAOA conversions, a large segment of flat-owners may be excluded.

E. Federalism & Portability

Apartment ownership acts vary across Indian states. Maharashtra may become a model, but if other states lag, national investors or cross-state developers may face patchwork systems. Could a “Model Apartment Ownership Record” or central guidelines help?

VII. Reform Proposals for Younger Lawyers

A. Embed VPC Shares in MAOA Undivided Interest

The VPC share must mirror the undivided interest defined under MAOA s. 6, and the Rules should require cross-reference to the MAOA Declaration or deed of apartment.

B. Move Toward a Limited-Guarantee Model

While full Torrens title may be a long-term goal, an interim measure could be a limited guarantee scheme for new projects registered under MahaRERA, where data integrity is higher.

C. Unique Real Property Identifier & 3-D Parcel

Adopt a unique property identifier (UPI) for each flat, linked to building, plot, unit number, and share, with GIS/3-D mapping. This aligns with UNECE guidelines on 3D cadastres.

D. Integration with RERA, Registration & Municipal Records

The VPC must link the RERA unit ID, sub-registrar transfer records, municipal property tax ID, and society membership. Auto-update flows reduce dependency on manual inputs.

E. Association & Encumbrance Registry

Housing societies and associations should be enabled (or mandated) to register by-laws, common expense dues, encumbrance notices and liens on the VPC system, so that each unit is a complete record.

F. Transparent Transition for Legacy Buildings

Design a public-notification mechanism: draft VPC card posted, objections invited, verification of documents, final issuance, appeal process, and costs clearly published. Avoid “silent conversion” which may breed litigation.

G. National Harmonisation

Encourage the drafting of a Model Apartment Ownership Record Rules, and push through dialogue in NAREDCO/CREDAI forums to converge on standards across states. This will support national institutional investment in flats.

VIII. Conclusion

The Vertical Property Card is an ambitious and necessary reform for Maharashtra and India. It represents:

• A move from 2-D to 3-D legal recognition

• A step toward integrating apartment ownership into the core land-record    framework

• A partial convergence with international condominium/strata systems

• A foundation for future law-reform towards conclusive title

  
  

For younger lawyers, this is a major moment. The VPC has the potential to transform how flat ownership is recorded, transferred, financed and litigated. But this potential will only be realised if the State, legal profession, developers, financiers and societies collaborate to build reliability, integration and governance into the system.

In short: the VPC may become India’s first modern apartment-titling system a bridge between statutory ownership and real land-record recognition but only if implemented with precision, legal clarity and global best-practice design.