Car Parking allotment

You are taking the right decision.

The impression given by the querist is that, - his is a building units of which having been sold as  'flats' (not as  'apartments');  and the provision for  'car parking' is in the open land ('common area') appurtenant to the building. If so, according to one's strict understanding of the applicable enactment, regardless of the common practice by builders, there can be no valid 'sale' of any such area, a specifically identified or demarked one at that, to any of the individual buyers. The SC's ruling seems to have simply given its interpretation of what the enactment says.

Besides, presumably, just as in some other States, there may be a mandate to be found in the development regulations of the governing local authorities, whereby the builder is, for obvious reasons, duty bound to leave adequate open space for car parking- at least for one car- by everyone of the 'flats' purchasers in a building complex.

No doubt, as one may have come to know, in particuar in recent years, there have been reported several unsavoury instances where the law and regulations have not been strictly - to the last letter and spirit- followed by the builders. Notwithstanding that, they  are or expected to have guided by and acted under profoundly proper legal advice. 

That being so, any individual purchaser, or the purchasers as a community, confronted with any such related  problem or practical difficulties, having own peculiarities, in order to safeguard and protect the legal rights and interests, will be well advised to act in consultation with and as per the advice of a competent but reputed and reliable professional.  

Dear Mr.Swaminathan,

Can you eloborate the difference between flat and apartment?

To continue:

The posts referred to in the last para of my previous mail are@ "SC Judgment on Stilt Car Parking" (seen on the left side of this Box).

So far I am aware, the builders in Mumbai , by and large, construct buildings of "flats", not of "Apartments"; unlike in cities like Bangalore. Should that be so also in the case herein, then, the querist will not have to necessarily bother about the legal position for 'apartments'; except, of course, for knowing in genaral, as a matter of academic interest.

Dear Mr.Swaminathan,

I had gone through your blog and thanks for the insight into the distinction b/w a flat and an apartment. Does the SC ruling over sale of parking space either open or covered, is with retrospective effect?

A seemingly good question; but it may be found answered, though not explicitly so as to enable a layperson to readily see.

To be explicit, the SC has, as is within its powers,  merely interpreted, rather clarified, what the law says. As such, in my conviction, any 'sale' made contrary to the law (also, as opined by the court),  regardless of when it is made (before or after the SC ruling) shoiuld be regarded as - 'non est' - that is, invalid in law.

In your own intersts, strongly suggest that, for any further action in contemplation, you should act in consulatation with a local profeassional, practising in property law matters (for, sadly, I am not one). 

I want to know ..Should we pay for open car parking or not and what does the law says. Please can some one show us the law.

My dear learned lawyer friends:

- SC or HC Judgement was on appeal prefererd by the plaintiff only on unsold parking

- No where any courts have ruled on sold parkings

- Parking owners were even not represented in any courts

How this judgement can have impact on sold parkings? Rulings on sold parkings must be sought saperarely and buyers of parking must get fair chance of representation. 

Views?