Maldana's :policy" of not allowing people to sell their houses
Executive summary
A blanket policy forbidding homeowners from selling their houses does not appear to exist under a single known entity called “Maldana”; instead, multiple jurisdictions impose targeted resale restrictions — for example, Maharashtra’s subsidized-housing rules prevent immediate resale of MHADA flats, and the Maldives restricts foreigners’ freehold ownership — and local ordinances such as Malden’s may attach affordable‑housing conditions without outright banning sales [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting shows these rules are typically framed to prevent profiteering, protect public purpose housing, or preserve national land ownership, not to permanently strip homeowners of disposal rights, though exact limits and enforcement vary [1] [2] [6].
1. How the “can’t sell” claim usually translates into law: resale lock‑ins and deed restrictions
Several well‑documented examples show that what gets described in headlines as “not allowing people to sell” is often a limited lock‑in period or deed condition rather than an eternal prohibition: MHADA’s rules for lottery‑allotted subsidized flats include a five‑year restriction on resale from the date of allotment aimed at stopping quick profits and ensuring end‑user occupancy [1] [2], and guidance on MHADA transfers requires formal clearances such as a No Objection Certificate and specific transfer regulations [7] [8].
2. The Maldives example: ownership type limits, not absolute prohibition on sale
In the Maldivian context, restrictions most frequently affect foreigners’ ability to hold freehold title; foreigners are typically limited to leasehold arrangements or commercial tourism investments rather than private freehold residential ownership, which constrains the practical ability to buy and later freely sell a private home but does not amount to a universal ban on sale by legitimate titleholders [3] [4] [6]. Analysts and guides note that foreigners can invest under long‑term leases or special conditions, and that domestic law prioritizes freehold for Maldivian nationals [3] [6].
3. Local ordinances and affordable housing covenants: conditional sale rights, not absolute denial
Municipal ordinances can make sales conditional — for example, language in a Malden (City of Malden) ordinance references properties “subject to affordable housing restrictions,” indicating that transfers may be governed by renewal fees, eligibility checks, or occupancy covenants rather than an outright ban on sale [5]. City‑level policy instruments typically aim to preserve affordability or manage parking and noise rules alongside transfer conditions, which means sales are regulated rather than universally prohibited [5].
4. Why governments impose these limits: stated rationales and competing interpretations
Authorities publicly justify restrictions as anti‑speculation measures and tools to keep scarce affordable housing for intended beneficiaries — MHADA explicitly frames its resale moratorium to stop immediate resale for quick profits and to serve genuine end‑users [2] [1]. Critics argue such rules can create secondary‑market distortions, encourage illegal early transfers through PoA or intermediaries, and generate enforcement burdens; MHADA coverage warns of illegal flat sales before the lock‑in period facilitated by power of attorney schemes [1].
5. What reporting does not establish and where more scrutiny is needed
None of the cited sources establishes a single actor named “Maldana” that issues a universal prohibition on selling homes; available reporting instead documents specific programs (MHADA), national ownership regimes (Maldives), and municipal ordinances (Malden) with varying limits on sale and transfer [1] [3] [5]. Where local practice or enforcement departs from written rules — for example, underground transfers of MHADA flats or the precise mechanics of Maldives leasehold exits — the sources warn of risks but do not provide exhaustive case law or enforcement statistics, so further legal review in the relevant jurisdiction is required for definitive legal advice [1] [6].