MahaREAT Orders Unauthorised Wing Demolished: What Maharashtra Homebuyers Should Know
Learn about RERA rights, buyer consent, refunds, penalties and project disclosures.
SHARE:
A revised building plan may carry municipal approval. That does not necessarily give a developer permission to rewrite the project that homebuyers originally agreed to purchase.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, or MahaREAT, has ordered the demolition of an additional wing at the Parshvadhara housing project in Belavali, Ambernath taluka, Thane district. The tribunal found that Wing E was not disclosed to purchasers in the original layout and could not be justified through general clauses in their agreements for sale.
The September 7, 2026 ruling also imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty and directed the promoters to restore open and recreational areas, complete conveyance of the project land and address other pending obligations.
The decision sends developers a forceful message: planning permission for revised construction cannot replace clear disclosure and legally valid homebuyer consent.
What Are Homebuyer Rights If MahaREAT Orders a Housing Wing Demolished?
Affected buyers can seek the tribunal order, verify whether their apartment or common areas are covered, stop further payments where legally advised and pursue appropriate relief through MahaRERA, an appeal, consumer proceedings, or another competent forum. Refund or compensation is not automatic in every demolition case; it depends on the buyer’s agreement, project status, possession rights and the relief already granted or separately claimed.
A buyer whose flat is located in the wing ordered demolished should immediately obtain independent legal advice. Buyers in the original wings should document any loss of gardens, parking, access, water connections or other promised common facilities.
What Happened at the Parshvadhara Project?
The dispute concerns a 3,870 sq metre project at Survey No. 3B, Hissa No. 6, Village Belavali. Although some coverage describes it as a Badlapur project, the reported tribunal record identifies the site as being in Ambernath taluka in Thane district.
The plan sanctioned on April 4, 2015 contained four residential wings, A, B, C and D. This was the layout shown to purchasers. Occupation certificates were issued for Wings B, C and D in January 2019 and for Wing A in October 2022.
The promoters subsequently obtained a revised sanction dated July 2, 2021 that introduced Building E. The housing society alleged that the additional construction had not been disclosed to the existing allottees and affected spaces originally shown as gardens, recreation areas and parking.
According to LiveLawBiz, the society approached MahaRERA in April 2022. The Authority’s August 2024 order required the promoters to follow the applicable process and obtain consent from two-thirds of the allottees before proceeding, while restraining additional construction pending compliance.
Both sides appealed. The appellate tribunal, led by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, went further by directing that the additional building be demolished at the promoters’ expense within 90 days.
Why Did MahaREAT Reject the Revised Plan?
The promoters argued that clauses in the sale agreements allowed them to use additional Floor Space Index, or FSI, and Transferable Development Rights that might become available later.
The tribunal rejected that position. It found that Wing E, the full project extent and the source or quantum of additional development rights had not been specifically disclosed to buyers.
A broad clause authorising future changes was therefore not treated as informed consent.
The Times of India reported that the 2015 plan and an architect’s certificate indicated that almost the entire FSI available to the disclosed project had already been consumed.
The ruling distinguished two separate requirements:
- Approval of a revised plan by the competent planning authority
- Compliance with the disclosures and consent obligations owed to purchasers
A developer may possess a sanctioned drawing and still breach RERA or Maharashtra flat-ownership law if the development contradicts what was disclosed to buyers.
What Is the Two-Thirds Allottee Consent Rule?
Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 restricts promoters from making certain alterations or additions to sanctioned plans, layouts and common areas without the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, excluding the promoter.
Each allottee generally counts as one for this purpose, irrespective of the number of apartments purchased.
The rule should not be oversimplified to mean that every project change always requires a fresh two-thirds vote. Minor alterations requested by an individual buyer, necessary technical changes and construction already fully disclosed in the sanctioned project documents may involve different legal considerations.
The critical issue in the Parshvadhara case was that the additional wing had not been fully and truthfully disclosed in the layout, brochure and agreements shown to existing purchasers.
As the Free Press Journal reported, the tribunal held that general agreement clauses could not substitute for informed consent when they failed to identify the proposed building and associated FSI or TDR.
Developers should therefore present the complete development potential transparently. Buyers, meanwhile, must check whether expressions such as “future development,” “additional wings” or “right to consume FSI” are supported by specific drawings and project disclosures.
What Else Did the Tribunal Order?
The MahaREAT directions extended beyond demolition. The promoters were ordered to restore the playground, garden, children’s playground, recreation ground and other open spaces in line with the 2015 sanctioned plan and representations made to buyers.
They were also directed to:
- Execute and register conveyance of the 3,870 sq metre project land, common areas and open spaces within 90 days
- Reconstruct the Wing D meter room, parking and society office as shown in the original plan
- Pursue the relevant authorities and obtain a total of 30 water connections
- Obtain the completion certificate under the 2015 plan and provide it to the society
- Pay the ₹10 lakh penalty within 30 days
The penalty was reportedly imposed under Section 61 of RERA. The promoters’ appeal was dismissed, while the society’s appeal was partly allowed.
The tribunal permitted the promoters to dispose of remaining flats subject to the conditions recorded in its order, including society membership arrangements for unsold apartments.
Can Buyers in an Unauthorised Wing Automatically Get a Refund?
No automatic refund should be assumed solely because a demolition order exists.
Under Section 18 of RERA, an allottee may have a right to seek refund, interest or compensation where a promoter fails to complete the project or cannot deliver possession in accordance with the agreement due to discontinuance, revocation or another qualifying reason.
Whether Section 18 or another remedy applies depends on the facts. A purchaser may also need to establish what was promised, whether possession was possible, how much was paid and which relief was requested in the proceedings.
Buyers should not stop loan repayments or abandon contractual obligations without legal advice. Instead, they should preserve:
- The registered agreement for sale
- Payment receipts and loan-disbursement records
- Brochures, advertisements and emails
- The sanctioned plan and MahaRERA disclosures
- The occupation or completion certificate, if claimed
- The MahaREAT order and any subsequent appeal or stay
If an appeal court stays the demolition direction, the immediate legal position could change. Buyers should check the current case status rather than relying only on news reports.
How Can Buyers Detect an Undisclosed Wing Before Booking?
A MahaRERA number alone is not enough. Buyers should compare the project’s registration record with the physical site and sales presentation.
First, identify the exact phase, wing and apartment covered by the registration. Download the sanctioned layout and check the total number of buildings, open spaces, access roads and amenities.
Next, compare the plan with the draft agreement. If the brochure shows four buildings but the agreement reserves a vague right to construct more, request a written explanation and the complete sanctioned plan.
Buyers should also examine quarterly project updates for plan amendments, revised completion dates and uploaded approvals. A visit to the site may reveal excavation or barricading in an area shown as a garden or playground.
For completed societies, conveyance deserves particular attention. Prolonged failure to transfer the land and common areas can allow disputes over control and future development rights to continue.
Never rely on a salesperson’s statement that an extra wing is “already approved.” Ask whether it was disclosed to existing buyers and whether legally required consent was obtained.
What Does the Ruling Mean for Maharashtra Developers?
The MahaREAT ruling is significant for housing and redevelopment projects across Mumbai, Pune, Thane and other Maharashtra markets because it places disclosure at the centre of project planning.
Developers cannot safely depend on open-ended agreement clauses to preserve every possible future development right. If additional construction was not disclosed, later planning approval may not cure the original information gap.
The ruling does not prevent legitimate project revisions. It demands that developers align revised plans with RERA, MOFA, contractual representations and the rights of existing allottees.
For responsible builders, the lesson is straightforward: document the full project, explain future phases precisely and obtain valid consent whenever the law requires it.
The Buyer Protection Takeaway
The Parshvadhara ruling turns the common homebuyer fear, “Can the builder all of a sudden put up another tower?” into a clear compliance alert.
Planning approval is important, but it is only part of legality. Project disclosure, informed consent, common-area protection and conveyance obligations matter in their own right.
Buyers should check not only if their tower is approved before buying a flat but also what else the developer could build on the same land.
