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.