Until recently, the process seemed cordial, but recent actions by the developer have raised several red flags. The developer initially shared our individual flat plans and got them approved by us, we were not shown the complete set of plans of the building prior to submission to BMC. Could you please clarify whether the developer is legally obligated to present the full and final building plans to all members before submitting them for BMC approval? Now that the BMC-approved plans are out, we’ve noticed several clear deviations from the terms of our registered Development Agreement (DA), including: 1. As per the DA, there were to be only 2 apartments per floor, both for existing members and the new sale flats. However, the approved plans now show 4 apartments on the sale floors, which significantly alters the gentry, increases the density, and is contrary to what was agreed in the registered DA - Can he make these changes without permission? 2.We were allocated 2 standalone non-stack car parking's in the DA. Now, the developer is imposing stack parking, which is not only less convenient but also a breach of the agreed terms. The DA clearly states that a gym is to be provided as part of the amenities. The developer is now saying this will no longer be constructed. The developer and the MC are now saying that since 51% of the members are in agreement with these changes, we must accept them as well. They are threatening us to put us as dissenting members and the court will not only order to remove us from our apartment but also impose fines as mentioned in the DA. Can they legally do this, especially when these deviations are in direct violation of a registered Development Agreement? What is the legal standing of such a DA if the developer can make unilateral changes based on majority consent? Please let me know: 1. The validity and enforceability of the original DA in this situation. 2. Whether these changes can be challenged. 3. What legal remedies or protections are available to us as dissenting members.
1) there must be clause in your agreement authorising builder to modify the building plans
2) check your agreement
3) if no such clause builder cannot change the plans without your consent
4) builder cannot provide stack parking if under DA it was separate slots
4) builder is bound to provide gym
5) if majority of members are accepting the changes it is biding upon all members
You can object to the majority decision and changes in DA only on point of illegality if any.
the court will upheld the legality if the changes are detrimental to the said project
As per Government of Maharashtra’s Redevelopment Guidelines (2018 circulars and earlier 2009 GR), the developer is expected to present the conceptual plans/layout to the society and members at a General Body Meeting (GBM).
Members have the right to know carpet area, number of floors, amenities, and FSI/TDR utilization before approval.
However, law does not specifically mandate that the final, BMC-ready architectural drawings be circulated to every individual member before submission.
Under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and redevelopment guidelines (if this is in Maharashtra), decisions of the general body (2/3rd or 3/4th majority, depending on circulars) bind the society.
If a change substantially affects individual rights (e.g., reduced carpet area, inferior amenities, altered consideration), an aggrieved member can challenge it before:
Co-operative Court/Registrar, Consumer Forum, or Civil Court, depending on the relief.
Any deviations outside the DA without proper execution and registration of an amendment may be treated as breach of contract.
Courts and consumer fora have struck down such unilateral deviations as “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practice.”
Registered Development Agreement is legally binding. Developer cannot make unilateral changes without formal amendment, regardless of 51% majority consent.
Density changes (2→4 flats per floor) breach fundamental terms
Parking changes (standalone→stack) violate specific allocations
Gym removal breaches contractual amenities
Hiding complete BMC plans lacks required transparency
Issue legal notice demanding DA compliance
File complaint with Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 91 MCS Act
RERA complaint for project violations
Seek court injunction to halt construction
51% majority cannot override registered DA terms
Courts consistently protect minority members from forced acceptance
Developer's threats are legally baseless - you cannot be forced to pay penalties for their breaches
File immediate legal notice and approach Co-operative Court. Your registered DA gives you strong legal standing to enforce original terms or claim damages. Don't be intimidated - the law protects you from these violations.
A Development Agreement, once duly executed and registered, is a binding contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and also has enforceability under property and redevelopment laws applicable in Maharashtra. The developer is legally bound to adhere strictly to the terms of the DA unless validly modified with the informed written consent of all affected parties. Any unilateral alteration of building plans, allocation of flats, parking arrangements, or amenities in derogation of the DA constitutes breach of contract as well as breach of fiduciary duty owed by the developer to the members.
In your case, the initial submission of only individual flat layouts without disclosure of the full building plan raises a transparency issue. The developer is not legally entitled to conceal or alter sanctioned plans in a manner inconsistent with the DA. The obligation is to construct strictly in accordance with the sanctioned scheme agreed to under the DA, and BMC approval cannot override contractual rights of members. Even if plans are sanctioned by BMC, that sanction does not validate deviations from the Development Agreement.
The proposal to increase the number of apartments per floor from two to four is a material change which alters the character of the building and adversely affects the rights of the members. Such change cannot be forced on you without your express consent. Similarly, replacing standalone parking with stack parking, or removing the promised gym amenity, directly violates the DA and is legally impermissible.
As regards the argument that 51% of members have consented, majority consent may be relevant in certain internal decisions of the society or association, but it does not automatically override a registered Development Agreement. The law recognizes that every member’s rights under the DA must be respected. Courts in Maharashtra have consistently held that unilateral deviations by a developer in contravention of a DA or a redevelopment agreement are actionable, and dissenting members cannot be dispossessed merely for objecting to breaches of the contract. Any threat of eviction or penalties without lawful basis amounts to coercion and has no legal validity.
Therefore:
The original registered DA remains fully valid and enforceable. Its terms cannot be overridden by unilateral actions of the developer or even by a simple majority vote if such changes affect substantive rights of individual members.
The changes can certainly be challenged as breaches of the DA. You are entitled to issue a legal notice to the developer calling upon him to adhere to the DA and withdraw unauthorized alterations. If he persists, you can approach the civil court for injunction and specific performance of the DA. You may also seek relief before the consumer forum for deficiency in service, or file a complaint with RERA for violation of sanctioned commitments.
As dissenting members, your legal remedies include filing a civil suit for injunction and damages, invoking RERA jurisdiction for breach of the DA, moving the consumer forum for deficiency of service, and seeking protective orders to restrain coercive action by the developer or managing committee. You cannot be dispossessed from your flat merely for objecting to illegal deviations, nor can arbitrary fines be imposed outside the scope of law.
Accordingly, you are protected by the binding nature of the DA, and the developer cannot use majority consent as a device to dilute your contractual rights. You may contact us for dedicated legal advice, detailed examination of your DA, and representation before the appropriate legal forum to safeguard your rights.
The problem is that the society member speaks through the society
Thus the member loses his individuality moment he becomes the member of the society
I would like to see the DA to give a detailed response
Without seeing the DA its difficult to comment
As regards your point 1, so long as that does not affect your overall entitlement, it would be a weak ground. Whether there are 2 flats per floor or 4 flats, it was a given that due to the redevelopment there will be an increase in density and number of society members as the free sale flat buyers would be admitted as society members. I don't know whether the rehab flats and free sale flats are to come up in the same building or in different wings
As regards the car park that appears to be a valid ground. The member gave the consent on the representation of 2 standalone car parks and not stack parking. So the member ought not to be taken for a ride after he gave his consent
As regards the gym again I would like to see the DA
The majority general body is supreme, however that doesn't mean that any unreasonable or irrational decisions are taken which would be onerous for the minority
I'd like to see the resolutions as well
Without seeing the papers its difficult to comment
Dear Client,
Under Maharashtra’s redevelopment framework, the developer must present conceptual plans, covering carpet area, floors, amenities, and FSI/TDR usage, to the society at a General Body Meeting, though the law does not require circulation of final BMC-ready drawings to each member before submission; once approved by the requisite majority under the Co-operative Societies Act and relevant GRs, the decision binds the society, but if changes later reduce promised benefits or alter members’ rights, the affected member can challenge such deviations as a breach of the Development Agreement before the Co-operative Court, Registrar, Consumer Forum, or Civil Court, where unilateral changes without proper amendments have often been struck down as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
To answer your queries specifically:
1. The original DA remains fully valid and enforceable against the developer until lawfully amended with proper execution and registration.
2. The changes can certainly be challenged if they are inconsistent with the DA; courts and consumer fora have, in fact, set aside such unilateral deviations as a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
3. Your remedies include approaching the Co-operative Court/Registrar, the Consumer Forum, or even filing a civil suit for injunction and enforcement of the DA.
I hope this answer helps. For any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank You.
