A recent ruling by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has clarified the limits of its authority in disputes over defective parking infrastructure, signalling that homebuyers may need to approach planning bodies rather than the regulator for structural grievances. The case, emerging from a residential project in Mumbai’s western suburbs, underscores a growing gap between consumer expectations and regulatory jurisdiction in dense urban housing markets.
The dispute centred on a mechanical parking system that flat owners claimed was impractical and unusable due to restricted dimensions, water accumulation, and inadequate manoeuvring space. Buyers argued that the system failed to meet prescribed planning norms and sought its removal and replacement with a redesigned facility. However, the authority declined to intervene on these grounds. It held that matters related to compliance with development control regulations and approved building plans fall outside its remit. Once an Occupation Certificate is issued by the local planning authority, the regulator treats the construction as compliant from a statutory standpoint.This interpretation effectively narrows the scope of MahaRERA parking dispute cases, limiting the regulator’s role to contractual and disclosure-related violations under real estate law. Urban planners note that this creates a dual-track system where buyers must navigate both regulatory and municipal channels to resolve issues tied to design and infrastructure quality.
In fast-growing cities like Mumbai, where land constraints have led to widespread adoption of mechanical and stack parking systems, such disputes are becoming more frequent. Industry observers say the ruling highlights the need for better integration between real estate regulation and urban planning enforcement. Without coordination, buyers may face prolonged resolution timelines across multiple authorities. Experts in housing policy suggest that the burden is increasingly shifting onto homebuyers to conduct technical due diligence before purchase. Recent regulatory measures mandating clearer disclosure of parking specifications in sale agreements are intended to improve transparency, but enforcement challenges remain, particularly in legacy projects.
The case also raises broader concerns about liveability and climate resilience in high-density developments. Poorly designed parking systems can exacerbate urban flooding risks, reduce usable space, and compromise accessibility issues that extend beyond individual buildings to neighbourhood planning. For now, the ruling establishes a clear procedural route: grievances linked to structural compliance or planning norms must be taken up with the same municipal authority that approved the project. As cities push toward more efficient land use and vertical growth, aligning regulatory oversight with on-ground realities will be critical to ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with urban needs.
