Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Parshwanath Developers & Ors.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), Mumbai
Appeal Nos.: AT006000000345557 & AT006000000345563 of 2024
Order dated: 7 September 2026
This is a significant MahaREAT ruling on unauthorised alteration of a sanctioned project, additional construction, protection of open/common areas, and the requirement of allottee consent under Section 14 of RERA. The Tribunal ordered demolition of an additional building constructed after a revised sanction, imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on the promoters, and directed restoration of the project substantially in accordance with the original 2015 plan.
1. Background of the dispute
The dispute concerned the Parshvadhara Complex at Belavali, Ambernath, District Thane, Maharashtra.
The project covered approximately 3,870 sq. metres. The original 2015 sanctioned layout contemplated Wings A, B, C and D and was represented to purchasers through the project's documents and disclosures.
The Tribunal noted that:
Wings B, C and D received Occupation Certificates on 29 January 2019.
Wing A received its Occupation Certificate on 7 October 2022.
Thus, the project contemplated under the original 2015 plan had effectively been completed by October 2022.
The controversy arose because the promoters subsequently obtained a revised sanction dated 2 July 2021, introducing an additional Building E.
The Society's case was that this additional building was introduced without informing or obtaining the requisite consent of the existing allottees, and that the additional construction adversely affected open and recreational areas shown in the original project plan.
2. What was the Society's objection?
The Society contended that purchasers had bought their apartments on the basis of the 2015 sanctioned plan, brochure and other project disclosures.
Those documents showed certain areas as:
playground;
garden;
children's playground;
recreation ground; and
other open/common areas.
The subsequent construction of Building E altered the development originally represented to the purchasers.
The Society therefore argued that the promoter could not unilaterally change the project after purchasers had acquired rights on the basis of the original disclosures.
3. Proceedings before MahaRERA
The Society issued a legal notice on 24 January 2022.
It subsequently approached MahaRERA on 21 April 2022, challenging the additional construction and seeking restoration of the affected areas and amenities.
The dispute ultimately reached MahaREAT through two connected appeals:
AT006000000345557 of 2024
AT006000000345563 of 2024
The Tribunal heard the Society's appeal as well as the promoters' challenge.
4. Central legal question
The principal question was:
Can a promoter introduce an additional building or materially alter the sanctioned/project plan after purchasers have acquired their apartments on the basis of an earlier disclosed plan, without obtaining the consent required under RERA?
MahaREAT answered this question against the promoters in the circumstances of the case.
5. Section 14 of RERA — the heart of the case
The decision is principally important for Section 14 of the RERA Act.
Section 14 requires the promoter to adhere to the sanctioned plans and specifications and regulates alterations to the sanctioned plan.
In particular, material alterations require the requisite consent of the allottees.
The Tribunal's approach was that the promoter cannot treat a subsequent planning permission or revised sanction from a planning authority as automatically giving it the right to alter the project vis-à-vis purchasers.
Important distinction
There are effectively two separate questions:
Planning authority approval
versus
RERA compliance vis-à-vis allottees
Obtaining revised permission from a municipal/planning authority does not, by itself, eliminate the promoter's obligations towards purchasers under RERA.
That distinction is one of the most useful aspects of this ruling.
6. Why was Building E problematic?
The Tribunal considered the original project documents and the subsequent development.
The original 2015 plan had disclosed a particular configuration of the project.
The later Building E was not merely a minor modification.
According to the Tribunal's findings, its construction affected the open and recreational areas that had been represented to the purchasers.
Therefore, the issue was not simply:
“Did the promoter obtain a revised sanction?”
Instead, it was:
“Could the promoter materially change the project and the rights/amenities represented to the existing allottees without complying with RERA?”
The Tribunal concluded that the answer was no.
7. The Tribunal's most consequential direction — demolition
MahaREAT directed the promoters to:
Demolish Building E
The demolition was to be carried out:
at the promoters' own expense, and
within 90 days.
This is an unusually strong remedial direction because the Tribunal did not merely impose a monetary penalty.
It required restoration of the project to the position contemplated by the earlier sanctioned plan.
8. Restoration of open and recreational areas
The Tribunal further directed restoration of the affected areas in accordance with the 2015 sanctioned plan, brochure and other disclosures made to the allottees.
The areas specifically referred to included:
playground;
garden;
children's playground;
recreation ground; and
other open spaces.
This is important because it recognises that a purchaser's rights under RERA can extend beyond the apartment itself.
The project configuration and promised common amenities can also form part of the purchaser's legitimate contractual/statutory expectations.
9. Conveyance of the project land
Another significant direction was concerning conveyance.
The promoters were directed to execute conveyance of the 3,870-square-metre project land, common areas and open spaces in favour of the Society within 90 days, subject to the promoters' right to dispose of any remaining flats.
This demonstrates the Tribunal's broader approach: the dispute was not confined to Building E but also concerned the Society's rights over the project and common areas.
10. Additional directions regarding Wing D
The Tribunal also directed the promoters to construct/complete facilities associated with D-Wing, including:
meter room;
parking; and
society office,
in accordance with the 2015 plan.
This reinforces the principle that the promoter must implement the project substantially in accordance with the commitments and disclosures on the basis of which purchasers acquired their units.
11. Water connections
The Tribunal directed the promoters to pursue the concerned authorities and obtain 30 water connections within 90 days.
This was another indication that the Tribunal was concerned not merely with the legality of Building E but with the completion of the project-related obligations affecting the Society and residents.
12. Completion certificate
The promoters were further directed to obtain the completion certificate in accordance with the 2015 sanctioned plan and provide it to the Society.
This is particularly significant in the context of the Tribunal's direction to restore the project to the original sanctioned configuration.
13. ₹10 lakh penalty
MahaREAT imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty under Section 61 of RERA on the promoters.
Section 61 deals with penalties for contravention of provisions of the Act for which no separate penalty is provided.
The penalty was directed to be paid within 30 days.
Thus, the Tribunal imposed both:
Corrective relief
Demolition/restoration/conveyance/completion measures
and
Penal consequences
₹10 lakh penalty under Section 61.
14. Outcome of the appeals
The Tribunal:
dismissed the promoters' appeal; and
partly allowed the Society's appeal.
The MahaREAT therefore modified the Authority's order and issued the additional directions described above.
15. Ratio Decidendi
The principle emerging from the decision can be stated as:
A promoter cannot materially alter a real-estate project, introduce additional construction or substantially modify common/open/recreational areas contrary to the project plan and disclosures on the basis of which allottees purchased their units, without complying with the consent and other requirements imposed by Section 14 of RERA.
A further important proposition is:
Approval of a revised plan by a planning authority does not, by itself, absolve the promoter from complying with its statutory obligations towards allottees under RERA.
16. Why this case is important for Apartment Owners' Associations
This decision is particularly useful for Co-operative Housing Societies, Apartment Owners' Associations and Resident Welfare Associations.
Where a developer proposes:
an additional tower;
an additional building;
construction on an open area;
reduction of recreational space;
conversion of a garden/playground;
alteration of promised amenities; or
substantial modification of the original layout,
the Society can examine whether the proposal is consistent with:
the sanctioned plan;
the Agreement for Sale;
the brochure;
the allotment documents;
the RERA disclosures;
the sanctioned layout;
the common-area representations; and
the consent requirements under Section 14.
17. A crucial legal distinction
The judgment should not be read as saying that every change in a project is prohibited.
The real question is whether the proposed alteration is:
Minor / already contemplated
or
Material / beyond what purchasers agreed to.
For example, a change that is already expressly contemplated by the Agreement for Sale and sanctioned project documents may raise a different issue.
But where the promoter seeks to introduce a material additional development that changes the project and affects areas or amenities represented to existing purchasers, Section 14 becomes particularly important.
18. Comparison with Raintree Boulevard
This case is especially useful when read with the Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Ltd. decision from Karnataka RERA.
The two decisions illustrate an important proposition:
| Situation | RERA consideration |
|---|---|
| Change already contemplated/agreed in project documents | Fresh consent may not necessarily be required |
| Material change beyond what was agreed/disclosed | Section 14 consent requirements become important |
| Additional construction affecting promised open/common areas | Stronger case for requiring allottee protection/consent |
| Revised municipal sanction obtained | Does not automatically eliminate RERA obligations |
19. Practical takeaway for promoters
Before undertaking additional construction, a promoter should carefully examine:
Original sanctioned plan → RERA registration documents → Agreement for Sale → brochure/project disclosures → common-area commitments → Section 14 → required allottee consent
A subsequent revised sanction from the planning authority should not be treated as a complete answer to the RERA question.
20. Practical takeaway for homebuyers/Societies
For a Society challenging additional construction, the strongest documentary evidence would ordinarily include:
original sanctioned layout;
revised sanctioned layout;
RERA registration documents;
sanctioned building plans;
brochure;
Agreement for Sale;
allotment documents;
photographs/site plans;
records showing the original open/recreational areas;
correspondence with the promoter;
Society resolutions; and
evidence concerning consent or absence of consent.
The comparison between the original and revised plans can be particularly important.
21. Key RERA provisions
Section 14 — Adherence to sanctioned plans
The principal provision in the case concerning alterations to the sanctioned/project plan.
Section 61 — Penalty
Used by MahaREAT to impose the ₹10 lakh penalty for the promoter's contraventions.
Sections concerning common areas/conveyance
The Tribunal's directions concerning conveyance and restoration also demonstrate the broader statutory framework protecting allottees and their rights in relation to the project and common areas.
Final legal takeaway
Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Parshwanath Developers & Ors. is a strong MahaREAT authority against unilateral material alteration of an RERA-registered project. The Tribunal found that the promoters could not introduce Building E, affecting areas represented as open and recreational spaces, without complying with the protections available to existing allottees. It therefore ordered demolition of the additional building, restoration of the original open spaces, conveyance-related steps, completion of promised facilities, 30 water connections, and a ₹10 lakh Section 61 penalty.
