'Builders Need Homebuyers’ Consent For Additional Construction': MahaREAT Orders Demolition Of Unauthorised Wing At Badlapur Housing Project

Mumbai, September 8, 2026: A clear warning for the development fraternity: obtaining approval for a revised building plan from the planning authority may not be enough if the proposed additional construction was not disclosed to homebuyers and their prior informed consent was not obtained.

Tribunal Orders Demolition

In a significant judgment that could have wider implications for redevelopment and real estate projects, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has directed a real estate developer to demolish an additional wing constructed under an amended plan, holding that the developer could not rely solely on the subsequent statutory approval to justify construction that was not part of the plan disclosed to the allottees (homebuyers).

The tribunal has also imposed a Rs 10 lakh penalty for violations of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).

The case arose after homebuyers of the society named Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. challenged the construction of Wing E, pointing out that the sanctioned plan dated April 4, 2015, shown to them at the time of purchase, comprised only four wings — A, B, C and D.

Occupation certificates were subsequently issued for Wings B, C and D on January 29, 2019, and for Wing A on October 7, 2022, completing the project in accordance with the 2015 plan.

However, the promoter of the Parshwanath Developers of this said society obtained a further revised plan on July 2, 2021, introducing Wing E without the consent of the society or its allottees.

The dispute went beyond the additional structure, with the society alleging that the revised construction affected spaces originally earmarked for recreation, open areas and parking.

It also alleged that the garden had been shifted onto two-wheeler parking space, the Wing-D meter room and society office had been converted into saleable parking, adequate water connections had not been secured and conveyance of the project land had not been executed.

Consent And Disclosure

The tribunal, while examining whether a developer can undertake additional construction merely on the strength of a subsequently sanctioned plan, drew a distinction between planning permission and disclosure to purchasers.

Its ruling effectively underlines that developers must ensure that any proposed additional structure is properly disclosed to buyers and that the statutory requirement of prior informed consent is complied with, rather than relying on broad or blanket clauses in agreements for sale.

The order was passed in the case of Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s. Parshwanath Developers & Ors., pronounced on September 7 by a bench comprising Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande.

"Our client, the society, approached MahaRERA after the promoter usurped the children's garden and open space by unilaterally amending the plans after filing Form 4 and obtaining the OC. The builder tried to use the open space and playground to construct an additional tower for commercial purposes. MREAT has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the mandatory consent required to carry out any additional construction beyond the sanctioned plan disclosed in the brochure, agreement for sale and advertisements," said Adv. Nilesh Gala, who represented the society.

The project, registered with MahaRERA, is spread over 3,870 sq m at Belavali in Badlapur, Thane district. Parshwanath Developers, comprising partners Ashish H. Doshi and Maganlal Velani, and landowner Baban K. Karale are the co-promoters under an area-sharing arrangement, as mentioned in the tribunal order.

Revised Plan Under Scrutiny

According to the Tribunal record, the sanctioned plan dated April 4, 2015, which was disclosed to the purchasers, comprised four wings — A, B, C and D. Occupation certificates were issued for Wings B, C and D on January 29, 2019, while Wing A received its occupation certificate on October 7, 2022. However, the promoters obtained another revised plan on July 2, 2021, introducing Wing E.

The housing society challenged the construction, contending that the additional wing affected spaces earmarked for recreation, open areas and parking.

The society also raised issues concerning the shifting of the garden shown in the original disclosures onto two-wheeler parking space, conversion of the Wing-D meter room and society office into saleable parking, inadequate water connections and failure to execute conveyance of the project land.

The society sought demolition of Wing E and restoration of the amenities, while the promoters challenged the directions issued by the MahaRERA Authority.

Tribunal Distinguishes Approvals

A key aspect of the Tribunal's ruling was its distinction between statutory approval obtained from a planning authority and the disclosures made to flat purchasers.

The Tribunal held that a promoter cannot construct additional structures merely because a revised plan has subsequently been sanctioned. Such construction must also comply with the disclosures made to purchasers and the consent requirements under MOFA and RERA.

It further applied the principle that additional FSI or TDR becoming available due to subsequent changes in development norms cannot be used contrary to the representations and disclosures made to purchasers.

The promoters had relied upon clauses in the agreements for sale that permitted them to consume additional FSI/TDR and make future alterations until conveyance of the property.

The Tribunal, however, held that such general or blanket clauses did not constitute informed consent for construction of Wing E. The agreements did not specifically disclose the proposed additional building, the extent of the project or the quantum and source of the additional FSI/TDR proposed to be used.

The Tribunal therefore answered in the negative the question of whether the promoters were entitled to construct Wing E under the 2021 revised plan without valid and informed consent of the allottees.

It held that the promoters had violated Section 7 of MOFA and Section 14 of RERA.

FSI And Conveyance Findings

The Tribunal also considered architects’ reports submitted during the proceedings. These indicated that the entire FSI available under the 2015 sanctioned plan had already been consumed by Wings A to D.

Consequently, the development potential under the disclosed project had been exhausted and the subsequent construction of Wing E could not be justified by claiming additional development potential.

The Tribunal held that once the project had been completed, possession handed over and the society registered, the promoters were also required to fulfil their statutory obligation to convey the land to the society. It referred to Sections 11(4)(f) and 17 of RERA in this regard.

Demolition And Restoration

Apart from demolition of Wing E, the Tribunal directed the promoters to restore the playground, garden, children's playground, recreation ground and other open spaces in accordance with the 2015 plan and the disclosures made to purchasers.

The promoters have also been directed to execute and register the conveyance deed for the 3,870 sq m project land, along with the open spaces and common areas, within 90 days.

Also Watch:

The Tribunal clarified that the promoters would retain their right to dispose of remaining flats, subject to the conditions set out in the order, including the option of being admitted as society members for unsold flats.

The Wing-D meter room, parking and society office are also to be reconstructed as provided in the 2015 plan.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/