You can file a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the society and developer to share documents, plans, approvals, and minutes and also an application seeking temporary injunction to restrain the developer from acting on the new plan and continuing redevelopment till the disposal of the suit also a declaration that the unilateral approval by MC is void since SGBM was not held.

You may note that alteration in layout plan or building plan must have written consent of existing flat purchasers.

The builder cannot alter the existing approved plan unilaterally.

Seek an injunction in Civil Court.

First, get the revised plans through RTI to BMC and written request to Society/Developer.

If BMC has already sanctioned the new plan, then you may move High Court to challenge the approval.

For injunction you need to file suit in civil court. You can approach before Hc in writ jurisdiction too

SGM ought to have been called for approval of change in plans 

2) issue legal notice to society on what basis change approved without SGM approval 

3) requisition an SGM with support of other society flat owners 

4) SGM should be for termination of developer for violation of terms of DA , to reject change in plans 

Based on the information you have shared, the redevelopment modifications carried out by the developer and approved only by the managing committee—without holding a Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) and without the mandatory consent of society members—are not legally valid.

Under Maharashtra redevelopment law and the Model Bye-laws applicable to cooperative housing societies in Mumbai, any significant change to the sanctioned building plan, orientation, layout, common areas, amenities, or member entitlements requires:

a formal SGBM,

a resolution passed by the required majority of members, and

full disclosure of revised sanctioned plans to all members prior to approval.

A managing committee cannot unilaterally approve such changes. Doing so may amount to a breach of trust, violation of the Development Agreement (DA), and an actionable misconduct under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Since the developer appears to have already submitted the revised plans to the BMC and taken further steps without transparency, it is important to act quickly to prevent irreversible construction progress. The appropriate legal remedy at this stage is to seek an injunction restraining the developer from continuing work based on the revised plans.

To obtain such relief, you may approach the City Civil Court in Mumbai and file a suit seeking:

a declaration that the revised plan approval is invalid without member consent, and

an interim injunction restraining the developer from relying on or executing the revised plan.

Along with the suit, an interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC can be filed seeking an urgent stay on construction until the matter is decided.

Separately, you should file:

an RTI with the BMC (Building Proposal Department) requesting copies of the revised plans, file notes, approval status, and documents submitted by the developer or society, and

a legal notice to the managing committee and developer demanding copies of the resolutions, plans, approvals, and amendments permitting the change.

If the BMC has already sanctioned the revised plan, then a challenge to the sanction itself may require a writ petition before the Bombay High Court—but that step should follow once the RTI response and documents clarify whether due process was followed.

You may also simultaneously initiate a complaint before MahaRERA if the revised plan affects member entitlements, area, layout, amenities, timelines, or contractual promises. RERA has power to direct the developer to restore the original plan, impose penalties, and compel disclosure.

The most efficient sequence of action is:

1. Send legal notice demanding disclosure

2. File RTI with BMC

3. File injunction in City Civil Court to stop work

4. If needed, file MahaRERA complaint

5. Consider writ in High Court only if BMC approval is found defective

Taking timely action is important because once construction progresses significantly, builders often claim that demolition or reversal is impractical.

If you would like, I can assist with drafting the notice, preparing the injunction application, and guiding the RTI wording.If you wish to contact us, you may do so on https://qrco.de/syslaw

It will be very difficult to get an injunction considering that majority have no objection 

You will have to file a suit in the co operative court for issuing a mandatory injunction against the society and builder and to seek disclosures 

However with such vague allegations in your present query and your past queries , I'm afraid if any relief would be granted to you, since the Court will always think that solely due to objections raised by one member the entire society and its members and the builder cannot be held to ransom. So you need to tread with caution as the jurisprudence is surely not in favour of minority objectors unless the objections raised by them are legitimate and bona-fide. If not, courts impose exemplary costs

Dear Client, 

If you have not registered the sale deed yet, it will be simple to rectify the error. Since the builder has confirmed it in writing, it must be a drafting error. You can correct it through a supplementary agreement where you have to refer to the original sale agreement and state that the specific clause in the agreement is an error, and add the builder's written confirmation that the 11th floor is actually the second milestone of the 10th floor. It must be signed by both you and the builder. You can get it registered after this. In addition to this, the agreement also mentions that you will get a flat plus one car park. RERA also approves of this. So, you need not worry.

I hope this answer helps you. For any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.

• Engage a local Mumbai advocate experienced in redevelopment + co‑operative housing.

• File:

  • Civil suit for declaration + injunction (Order 39 CPC), and

  • If advised, a dispute under Section 91 MCS Act before Co‑operative Court against society + developer for acting without SGBM and for DA breaches.​

You generally approach the civil/co‑operative court first; the High Court comes in later only by way of writ/appeal if needed.

- As per rule , the consent of at least 70% members needed for any re-development and also SGBM is mandatory 

- You can send a legal notice to the society and also the developer 

- If no positive response, then file an Injunction suit before the Civil Judge.