Stilt parking

1.  Parking space CANNOT be Sold-Purchase. BUT there is no legal concept of "returning" the parking space to the Society.

2.  A member is entitled to use the available Parking Space in the Society compound.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
https://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar

The stilt parking spaces cannot be put on sale by the developer as he ceases to have any title on the same as soon as the occupation certificate is issued and it becomes the property of the society on its registration. The stilt parking spaces cannot be termed as `open/covered garages' for sale of covered/open garage in addition to the flat. The stilt car parking spaces is part of the common amenities and it cannot be treated to be a separate premises/garage which could be sold by the developer to any of the members of the society or an outsider.

Ownership of parking slots have become a grey area. Supreme Court judgments are being interpreted without going through them.

If owning a flat is a fundamental right, owning of car parking lot is also a fundamental right. If you are in Mumbai there are Development Control Rules which stipulate the number of parking lots to be provided by the builder based on the number and areas of flats.

Model Bye-laws 2013 clearly state that the Society can allot only those parking lots which are not owned by any member. In other words the Bye-laws recognize that parking lots can be owned.

I need a house to stay and I shall purchase one if I can afford. No one can evict me from the flat. I will have a car if I can afford. Law allows me to own car. If law allows me to own a car, law also has to allow me to have a parking lot from where I can refuse my car to be evicted. I shall go in search of building where a place for myself and a place for my car assured. It need not be a closed garage.

Legally,  Supreme Court  decisions are law of the land. No one can go beyond that.

Owning a flat is not a fundamental right.

Supreme court judgment is law of the land only for similar. One cannot quote the title given to a case or a judgment and say that it is the law. 

In the particular case in which the it was ruled that the builder could not sell the parking lot, the events that preceded the builder's petition before the court  for title to the parking lots which would have enabled him to sell them did not support his claim. In another case it could have been different. It would be pathetic, if the Supreme Court takes upon itself what is the prerogative of the law-makers of the land. When law makers make laws to meet their selfish ends, the Supreme Court has to step in. The Supreme Court was right in holding that repeal of Section 377 IPC is the prerogative of the Parliament.

Bye-law No. 78(b) of the  Maharashtra Model bye-laws 2013 says:

The allotment of the parking spaces shall be made by the Committee on the basis of “First Come First Served” for unsold  and available parking spaces.

The word "unsold" means that there can be parking spaces sold (to members).

Under what right does a person own his residence? The same right will be applicable for ownership of a parking lot also if he has a car. I can give instances where the Supreme Court has given patently absurd judgments. Unfortunately we have to abide by them.