Parking rules in housing societies
Most society parking disputes are really ownership disputes in disguise. Whether the builder could sell that stilt slot in the first place is the question underneath almost all of them.
Open and stilt parking in a housing society is generally common area belonging to the society, not saleable property. The Supreme Court has held that developers cannot sell open or stilt parking as independent units, and allotment is therefore for the society to make under its bye-laws.
Who actually owns society parking?
This is the question underneath almost every parking dispute, and the legal position is clearer than most societies assume. The Supreme Court in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd v Panchali Co-operative Housing Society held that stilt and open parking spaces form part of the common areas of a building and cannot be sold by a developer as separate saleable units. Parking is not flat area; it is common property in which every member has an interest.
The consequence is that allotment of parking is a matter for the society, made under its bye-laws and by its general body or committee, not a property right a member acquired from the developer. A member holding a builder receipt for a stilt slot has a claim against the builder for what they paid; they do not thereby own the slot as against the society.
Covered garages that are separately constructed and separately sanctioned may stand on different footing, and the position has been litigated in several forms since. Where a member asserts a purchased parking right, look at what was actually sold, what the sanctioned plans show, and what the agreement for sale says — and take advice rather than deciding it at a committee meeting.
- Stilt and open parking are common areas. Held not to be independently saleable by a developer.
- Allotment is the society’s to make. Under the bye-laws, not by developer assignment.
- A builder receipt is a claim against the builder. Not ownership as against the society.
How parking allotment should work
Allotment should follow a rule the general body has resolved, applied consistently and recorded. The rule itself can take several forms — one slot per flat where supply permits, allotment by seniority of membership, rotation of preferred slots at intervals, or a transparent auction of premium slots with proceeds to the society. What matters is that the basis is stated, resolved, and applied to everyone the same way.
Record the allotment with a date and a basis. A parking register that says which slot, to which flat, from when, and under which resolution is the document that resolves disputes years later. Its absence is why most societies cannot resolve them.
Where demand exceeds supply — which is the normal situation — a waitlist with a stated ordering principle is essential, and rotation should actually happen if the society resolved to rotate. A society that resolves to rotate covered parking annually and then does not is in a worse position than one that never resolved it, because members are entitled to expect a resolution to be implemented.
- Resolve the basis at the general body. One per flat, seniority, rotation or auction — but stated.
- Record slot, flat, date and basis. This is what settles a dispute in three years.
- Maintain a waitlist with a clear ordering. Scarcity is normal; opacity is what makes it contentious.
- Implement rotations you resolved. An unimplemented resolution is worse than none.
The recurring flashpoints
Two situations account for most parking litigation in Indian societies.
Builder-sold parking: is it legal?
Following Nahalchand, a developer cannot sell open or stilt parking as an independent unit. Nonetheless, many buyers hold receipts and believe they purchased a slot, sometimes for substantial amounts, and they are understandably aggrieved when the society allots on a different basis.
The society’s position is that allotment is its to make; the buyer’s remedy is against the developer who took money for something it could not sell. That is legally coherent and practically painful, and it is the source of considerable bitterness in newly formed societies. Handle it with the acknowledgement that the member was wronged by someone — just not by the society — and consider whether the allotment rule can reasonably take historical arrangements into account without conceding that they were valid sales.
Visitor parking misuse
Visitor parking that is not actively managed becomes overflow resident parking within months, at which point actual visitors have nowhere to go. Sanctioned plans generally require visitor parking to be provided and maintained as such, and a society that has allotted its visitor parking to residents may be in breach of the sanctioned plan.
Managing it requires a limited pool of timed passes issued per visit rather than a first-come arrangement, and enforcement against residents parking in visitor bays. The enforcement is the unpopular part and the part that determines whether the policy works.
What societies can charge for parking
A society may levy parking charges where its bye-laws provide for them and the general body has resolved the rate. These are typically modest monthly amounts per allotted slot, and the basis is recovery of the cost of maintaining the parking areas rather than rent for a property interest.
A society can also generally charge differentially between covered and open slots, and between a first and a second slot, where the general body has resolved it — a higher rate for a second slot is a common and defensible way to manage scarcity. What is more difficult is a charge so high as to be in substance a penalty or a de facto sale of the space, which invites challenge.
Charges for visitor parking beyond a free period, and penalties for parking violations, need a bye-law basis and a resolution like any other charge. A penalty levied without that basis, or without notice and an opportunity to be heard, is generally unenforceable however clearly the vehicle was in the wrong place.
- Charges need a bye-law basis and a resolution. Like every other head.
- Differential rates are generally defensible. Covered versus open, first versus second slot.
- Penalties need notice and a hearing. And a bye-law provision authorising them.
Resolving parking disputes fairly
Start from the register. Most disputes dissolve once there is an authoritative record of what was allotted to whom, on what date and under which resolution — and most societies cannot produce one, which is why the disputes persist. Building that register, even retrospectively, is the highest-value thing a committee can do about parking.
Where two members claim the same slot, the question is which allotment came first and under what authority, not which member is more insistent. Where a member claims a purchased slot, separate the question of their grievance against the builder from the question of the society’s allotment; both can be true.
Handle enforcement consistently and with evidence. A violation logged with a photograph, a time and a location, notified to the member, and escalated through a stated procedure is enforceable. A penalty imposed on the basis of a guard’s report of an incident nobody documented is not, and attempting it costs the committee credibility it needs for the cases that matter.
- Build the register first. Most disputes are a records problem, not a fairness problem.
- Separate the builder grievance from the allotment question. Both can be legitimate.
- Enforce with evidence and consistency. Photographs, timestamps and a stated procedure.
- Never clamp or tow without a clear basis. Self-help against a member’s property invites a claim.