For urban apartment buyers in India, purchasing a home is often tied to a hefty premium for designated car parking space. Yet, a growing number of homebuyers face a frustrating reality: mechanical parking systems that are practically unusable, or stilt parking areas illegally converted by builders into commercial shops, offices, and residential units.
When two Mumbai homebuyers recently approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) over a faulty mechanical parking setup, the regulatory body dismissed the complaint.
While it may seem like a setback for consumer rights, a deeper look at real estate regulation reveals that a RERA dismissal does not mean the builder gets away with it. In fact, multiple landmark High Court and Supreme Court rulings prove that municipal laws and civil courts hold immense power to order the physical demolition of illegal structures and restore parking areas to their rightful state.
The MahaRERA Precedent: Why the Regulator Refused to Intervene
In the Mumbai case, two homebuyers who had paid ₹5 lakh each for parking spaces in a Borivali residential project approached MahaRERA. They argued that the builder’s mechanical parking system was flawed due to:
- Insufficient parking dimensions that made parking standard vehicles nearly impossible.
- Frequent waterlogging within the pit or mechanical area.
- Highly restricted maneuvering space making it a daily hazard.
- Alleged structural deviations from the building plans originally approved by the city.
The developer countered that the project had already received its Occupation Certificate (OC) from the local municipal planning authority, which officially validated that the building conformed to local laws.
MahaRERA dismissed the homebuyers’ complaints, drawing a sharp legal line between real estate regulation and town planning enforcement.
However, the ruling did not declare the parking facility legal, nor did it state that defective parking structures can never be altered or removed.
Instead, the authority clarified a crucial jurisdictional principle:
The authority clarified that its jurisdiction governs real estate market practices under the RERA Act, but it does not possess the power to alter structural layouts or police development control rule violations.
In simple words, MahaRERA said: “We handle real estate business rules, not building design laws.”
Where The Homebuyers Must Have Gone to ?
Since MahaRERA made it clear that they regulate real estate market transactions but lack the structural mandate to police town planning or order demolitions, the homebuyers chose the wrong legal tool for the job.
To fix layout issues, technical blueprint deviations, or unusable dimensions (especially after an Occupation Certificate has been issued), the homebuyers should have approached the following authorities:
1. The Local Planning Authority (The Municipal Corporation): The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) building proposal and town planning departments are the agencies that actually enforce the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR).
2. The State High Court (Via a Writ Petition): If the local municipal corporation ignores the homebuyers’ complaints, the buyers should file a Writ Petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court.
Why an Occupation Certificate (OC) Isn’t a Shield for Builders
A common misconception among developers is that securing an Occupation Certificate makes a building immune to legal scrutiny. While an OC indicates that a specialized authority found the project compliant at the time of inspection, courts have consistently stepped in post-OC under the following conditions:
- Approvals or certificates were obtained by the builder through misrepresentation.
- Crucial structural facts were concealed from the municipal inspectors.
- Unauthorized physical deviations were carried out after the OC was handed over.
- Severe public safety or structural integrity hazards emerge during occupancy.
Demolition and Restoration: High Courts Take a Hard Line on Parking Fraud
While RERA authorities focus on project registrations and financial compliance, the High Courts across India have repeatedly used municipal planning laws to penalize builders who compromise on mandated parking space.
1. The AP High Court Stilt-Parking Ruling (December 2025)
In a landmark judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed a local municipal corporation to physically demolish unauthorized commercial shops constructed within the stilt-floor parking area of an apartment building. The Court ordered that the space be fully restored to its original state for the residents’ vehicles, establishing that judicial remedies extend to physical restoration, not just monetary fines.
2. The Calcutta High Court Mandate (2025)
Similarly, the Calcutta High Court ordered the immediate restoration of parking zones following a builder’s unauthorized conversion of sanctioned parking and common areas into alternative commercial spaces. The ruling re-emphasized that open spaces mandated by city building codes cannot be reallocated or repurposed for financial gain.
3. The Supreme Court’s Uncompromising Stance
The absolute bedrock of parking law in Indian real estate remains the Supreme Court’s decision in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The apex court held that stilt parking and open parking spaces are intrinsically part of the “common areas” of a society. Consequently, a builder has no legal ownership over them and cannot sell them separately to external parties.
Reiterating this principle in a fresh 2025 observation regarding illegal building modifications, the Supreme Court stated plainly:
“Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out.”
Action Plan: Legal Remedies for Apartment Owners and RWA Associations
If a developer has illegally modified your apartment building’s parking layouts, you need to target the appropriate jurisdiction rather than filing a standard RERA claim.
| Builder Infraction | Target Authority | Ultimate Legal Remedy |
| Converted stilt parking into commercial shops or offices | Municipal Corporations (e.g., GCC in Chennai, BMC in Mumbai) | Official Demolition Order & Municipal Encroachment Drive |
| Built temporary/permanent rooms in common parking space | Town Planning Department / Local Municipality | Structure Removal & Fine under Town Planning Acts |
| Enclosed common parking plots for private sell-offs | Civil Courts / State High Court | Injection against sale, Title Restitution to RWA |
| Reduced mandatory parking dimensions below CMDA/DTCP/DCPR rules | State Enforcement Directorate / High Court Writ Petition | Mandatory Restoration to Original Approved Layout Blueprint |
Regional Focus: Navigating Rules in Tamil Nadu
For homebuyers and Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) in Tamil Nadu dealing with reduced mandatory parking space under CMDA (Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) or DTCP (Directorate of Town and Country Planning) approvals, the path forward involves file tracking with local municipal offices.
If a builder encloses spaces or skimps on dimensions, your association should bypass RERA for structural complaints. Approach the municipal corporation or file a writ petition in the Madras High Court to seek an official declaration of unauthorized construction, followed by a court-mandated demolition and restoration order.
Final Takeaway
When a real estate regulator like MahaRERA steps back from a parking dispute, it isn’t an endorsement of the builder’s layout. It is a procedural signal to change your legal forum. Real estate buyers must remember that local building bylaws, municipal enforcement teams, and constitutional High Courts hold the ultimate jurisdiction to ensure that the parking space you paid for remains yours to use.