Co op housing society car parking

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 20 September 2026 This query is : Resolved
I have 2 car parking spaces, one Stilt and one open bought from the builder in 1973. The society was formed after 1975.My Grandfather died on 2006, and the society Transfered the flat along with the car parking spaces to my father’s name which is minuted in the society’s record.Then my father passed away in 2022.The society now Transfered the flat & both the car par spaces in my name and this too has been minuted in the society’s records.Now they want to take away my open car park space saying there are members who do not have parking space.But We bought it from the builder more than 50 years ago & they are now saying that the society has to follow the new parking rule after the landmark judgement of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2010) and so the society can take away my open car park.Is this possible? How can I protect my right over my parking spaces?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

A co-op housing society member is seeking advice on retaining two car parking spaces purchased in 1973, which have been legally transferred to their name. The society is now attempting to reallocate the open parking space due to new rules following a landmark court judgment, despite the spaces being owned for over 50 years. The advice given is to consult a local lawyer with the specific court judgment to understand legal standing and protect their rights.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 20 September 2026
Urgent need of reply

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 20 September 2026
Without verifying the judgment cannot form an opinion. So you show the judgement to a local lawyer and follow his guidance.

Dr. J C Vashista (Expert) 25 September 2026
You must have gone through the judgment, what is the ratio of judgment, whether it is beneficial in your case ?

P. Venu (Expert) 25 September 2026
Having perused the Judgment, paras 39 and 40 provide the ratio. It is based on the provisions of the Maharashtra Flat Owner's Act -
"39. We have now come to the last question namely-- what are the rights of a promoter vis-`-vis society (of flat purchasers) in respect of stilt parking space/s. It was argued that the right of the promoter to dispose of the stilt parking space is a matter falling within the domain of the promoter's contractual, legal and fundamental right and such right is not affected. This argument is founded on the premise, firstly, that stilt parking space is a `flat' by itself within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and in the alternative that it is not part of `common areas'. But we have already held that `stilt parking space' is not covered by the term `garage' much less a `flat' and that it is part of `common areas'. As a necessary corollary to the answers given by us to question nos. (i) to (iii), it must be held that stilt parking space/s being part of `common areas' of the building developed by the promoter, the only right that the promoter has, is to charge the cost thereof in proportion to the carpet area of the flat from each flat purchaser. Such stilt parking space being neither `flat' under Section 2(a-1) nor `garage' within the meaning of that provision is not sellable at all.
40. MOFA was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature as it was found that builders/ developers/ promoters were indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and
the flat purchasers were being exploited. The effect of MOFA may be summarized as follows. First, every promoter who constructs or intends to construct block or building of flats in the area to which MOFA applies has to strictly adhere to the provisions contained therein, i.e., inter alia, he has to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land on which the flats are constructed and also make disclosure in respect of the extent of the carpet area of the flat and the nature, extent and description of the common areas and facilities when the flats are advertised for sale. Secondly, the particulars which are set out in Section 4(1A) (a) (i) to (x) have to be incorporated in the agreement with the flat purchaser. Thirdly, the promoter has to apply to the Registrar for registration of the organization (co-operative society or company or condominium) as soon as minimum number of persons required to form such organization have taken flats. As regards unsold flats, the promoter has to join such organization although his right to dispose of unsold flats remains unaffected. Fourthly, and more importantly, the promoter has to take all necessary steps to complete his title and convey to the organization his right, title and interest in the land and building and execute all relevant documents accordingly. It was argued by Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel for the promoter that in view of the provisions of MOFA, Section 6 of T.P. Act and Article 300A of the Constitution, the right of the promoter to transfer parking spaces is not at all restricted. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors..4,Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narasimahaiah & Ors.5 and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 452 (2008) 5 SCC 176 v. State of Gujarat & Anr.6, he submitted that the provisions contained in MOFA must be construed strictly and there is no provision either express or by necessary implication in MOFA restricting the sale of stilt or open parking spaces. Mr. Sunil Gupta also argued that promoter continues to have contractual, legal and fundamental right to dispose of the stilt/ open parking space in the manner in which he proposes and his consumers accept. We think this argument does not bear detailed examination. Suffice it to say that if the argument of learned senior counsel and counsel for promoter is accepted, the mischief with which MOFA is obviously intended to deal with would remain unabated and flat purchasers would continue to be exploited indirectly by the promoters. In our opinion, MOFA does restrict the rights of the promoter in the block or building constructed for flats or to be constructed for flats to which that Act applies. The promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not `flat' within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and the entire land and building has to be conveyed to the organisation; the only right remains with the promoter is to sell unsold flats. It is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell `stilt parking spaces' as these are neither `flat' nor appurtenant or attachment to a `flat'."

Based on the said ratio, it cannot be said that the querist could have any special claim over the parking areas because of the alleged purchase from the promoter/builder, esp. if the property is situated in Maharashtra.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 03 October 2026
While housing societies frequently cite the landmark Supreme Court decision in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2010) to reclaim parking, the society's interpretation and application of this ruling to your specific case are legally flawed.
The Supreme Court's 2010 Nahalchand judgment declared that builders cannot legally sell open or stilt parking spaces as independent "flats" or separate units under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). However, this judgment does not automatically invalidate or nullify settled, decades-old allotments that took place in the 1970s prior to the formation of the society, especially where peaceful possession and enjoyment have continued uninterrupted for over 50 years.
The society transferred the flat along with both car parking spaces to your father in 2006, and subsequently to your name in 2022. Both transfers were formally minuted in the society’s official managing committee records. Having explicitly recognized, sanctioned, and minuted your title/allotment to both spaces across multiple generations, the society is legally stopped (prevented) from going back on its own official records.
You may Collect the original 1973 allotment/purchase papers, original builder agreements, letters of transfer from 2006 and 2022, society share certificates, and maintenance receipts mentioning parking charges. Send a formal legal reply to the society board. An authoritative legal response often stops Managing Committees from taking hasty action.
If there is an imminent threat of physical obstruction (e.g., someone else parking in your spot or society putting up barriers), file a dispute in the Co-operative Court or file a civil suit for a Permanent Injunction restraining the society from interfering with your peaceful possession and use of the open car parking space.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries