CC12503766
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through Video Conference as per Circular No: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: CC12503766

EVERGREEN WOODS B CHS
…COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. ANKUR MAYFLOWER ASSOCIATES

2. VINCA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

3. SAHAJ ANKUR REALTORS
…RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800008167


INTERIM ORDER


(10.03.2026)
(Date of Hearing: 05.02.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, Maha RERA

Advocate Nilesh Gala for the Complainant
Advocate Viraj Bansod for Respondent No. 1
Advocate Bishwajeet Mukherjee for Respondent No. 2

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant Society seeking various
reliefs under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the “RERA”). Along with the main complaint, the
Complainant has also sought interim reliefs, inter alia, seeking directions against the
Respondents.
The brief facts and submissions of the Complainant in the Complaint are as below: -

CC12503766

2. The Complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the provisions
of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, consisting of flat purchasers in
Wings B & C of the project known as “Evergreen Woods”, situated on land bearing
CTS No. 657, 657/1 to 19 situated at Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai –
400069, Division Gundavali, Andheri Village, Mumbai Suburban District (“Said
Land”).

3. It is the case of the Complainant that the Respondents are the promoters and
developers of the said project, which is registered with MahaRERA under Registration
No. P51800008167. The Respondents undertook development of the said project
consisting of A Wing (“Business Hub” - adm. 774.37 Sq.mtr.) and B and C wings
(“Evergreen Woods” – adm. 1005.59 sq.mtrs.) consisting of total land area adm. 1877.5
Sq.mtrs.

4. The Complainant submits that Wings B and C of the project have received
Occupation Certificate dated 15.08.2021 and the members of the Complainant Society
are in possession of their respective flats.

5. The Complainant has contended that as per the sanctioned plans and
representations made, certain areas including Recreational Ground (RG) and common
areas total adm. 267.1 Sq.mtrs. were earmarked for the use and benefit of the flat
purchasers and the society i.e. purchasers of wing B and C.

6. It is further the case of the Complainant that subsequent to grant of Occupation
Certificate, the Respondents have obtained amended sanctioned plans and have
carried out or are proposing to carry out additional construction, including
construction of shops and other structures in areas originally designated as
Recreational Ground and/or common areas, and have also made changes in the
layout thereby amalgamated the adjoining plots to usurp the RG Area/ Amenity
spaces of the residential project and generate new FSI from the plot of the
Complainant society.

7. The Complainant has alleged that such amendments and construction activities
have been undertaken without obtaining consent of the allottees and in violation of

CC12503766
the provisions of Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016, and are prejudicial to the rights and interests of the members of the Complainant
Society.

8. The Complainant has further submitted that the Respondents have failed to execute
conveyance of the land and building in favour of the Complainant Society within the
prescribed period, as required under Section 17 of the Act.

9. Aggrieved by the alleged actions of the Respondents, the Complainant has filed the
present complaint seeking various final reliefs and interim reliefs, inter alia, seeking
declaration of the alleged unauthorized amendments to the sanctioned plans,
restraining the Respondents from carrying out further construction pursuant to the
amended plans, protection of the Recreational Ground and common areas, execution
of conveyance in favour of the Complainant Society, and other consequential reliefs
under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

10. The Complainant has not filed written arguments on record in respect of the
interim reliefs sought in the present complaint.

11. The Respondent No. 2, namely ANKUR MAYFLOWER ASSOCIATES, has filed a
limited Affidavit-in-Reply on 05.01.2026 on the MahaRERA website in response to the
interim reliefs sought by the Complainant, thereby opposing the grant of such interim
reliefs. And further, they have also filed Written Submission on MahaRERA website
on 15.01.2026.
The main submissions made by Respondent No. 2 in its Affidavit-in-Reply are briefly
summarized herein below:

12. The Respondent No. 2 has filed a Limited Affidavit-in-Reply opposing the grant
of interim reliefs sought by the Complainant and has denied all allegations made in
the Complaint. The Respondent No. 2 has contended that the present Complaint is
misconceived, not maintainable, and no case is made out for grant of interim relief.

13. The Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the Complainant has suppressed
material facts and prior proceedings from this Authority. It is contended that the
Complainant has already filed L.C. Suit (L) No. 12272 of 2023 before the Hon’ble City

CC12503766
Civil Court in respect of the same subject property and has sought substantially
similar reliefs, including challenge to amended plans and construction activities. The
said suit is pending adjudication.

14. It is further submitted that the Complainant had previously filed
Complaint No.
CC12501904
before this Authority seeking similar substantive and interim reliefs,
including stay on construction, revocation of project registration, and removal of
alleged constructions. It is contended that no interim relief has been granted in the
said complaint and the present complaint is repetitive in nature.

15. The Respondent No. 2 has contended that the present Complaint is barred by the
principles of res judicata and constitutes an abuse of process of law, as the
Complainant is attempting to reagitate identical issues before multiple forums.

16. The Respondent No. 2 has further submitted that the Complainant and its
members have engaged in forum shopping by initiating parallel proceedings before
the Civil Court and this Authority seeking similar reliefs in respect of the same subject
matter.

17. The Respondent No. 2 has also raised an objection regarding jurisdiction and has
contended that the reliefs sought by the Complainant, including removal of
construction, declaration of illegality of sanctioned plans, and adjudication of
property rights, fall outside the scope of jurisdiction of this Authority and are matters
to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.

18. The Respondent No.2 states that several members of the Complainant have
executed express and unequivocal Consent letters in favour of the Respondent No. 2,
permitting amalgamation of the subject property with adjoining properties and in
light of such consents, there was no requirement of any further or additional consent.
And the same Consent letters are annexed in Compilation of Documents filed before
this authority as “Annexure-C”

19. It is further submitted that the present Complaint involves disputed questions of
fact and law and requires detailed adjudication. The Respondent No. 2 has contended

CC12503766
that no prima facie case is made out by the Complainant, and that grant of interim
relief would cause serious prejudice to the Respondents.

20. In view of the above, the Respondent No. 2 has prayed for rejection of the interim
reliefs sought by the Complainant.

21. The Advocates for both parties advanced their oral submissions on the interim
reliefs on 07.01.2026 before this Hon’ble Authority, which have been duly recorded in
the Roznama. The same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity, as the
material submissions have already been captured and addressed in the foregoing
paragraphs.

22. I have carefully considered the documents placed on record and the oral
submissions made by both the parties. I have also perused the judgments/orders
relied upon by the parties.

23. It is an admitted position that Wings B and C of the subject project have received
Occupation Certificate dated 15.08.2021. It is the case of the Respondents that
subsequent amended plans have been sanctioned by the competent planning
authority and actions have been undertaken pursuant thereto.

24. The Complainant has alleged that such amendments and construction activities
have been undertaken without consent of the allottees and in violation of the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The
Respondents have denied the said allegations and have contended that the amended
plans have been duly sanctioned, and the development is being carried out in
accordance with permissions granted by the competent authority and the consent was
given by the several members of the Complainant.

25. At this stage, it is observed that the issues raised by the Complainant pertain to
legality of amended sanctioned plans and alleged violations of statutory provisions.
These issues involve disputed questions which require detailed examination of
documents and submissions and cannot be conclusively determined at the interim
stage.

CC12503766

26. The objections raised by Respondent No. 2 regarding maintainability, pendency of
civil proceedings, and jurisdiction involve mixed questions of fact and law which
require detailed examination and adjudication on merits. At this stage, the said issues
cannot be conclusively determined while considering the application for interim relief
and are therefore kept open for adjudication at the appropriate stage.

27. It is well settled that interim relief can be granted only upon establishment of a
prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable loss. In the
present case, the Complainant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds warranting
interim interference with the actions undertaken by the Respondents pursuant to
sanctioned plans.

28. It is further observed that the interim reliefs sought by the Complainant are
substantially similar to the final reliefs prayed in the complaint. Granting such relief
at this stage would amount to granting final relief without adjudication on merits,
which is not warranted.

29. It is further observed that the amended plans relied upon by the Respondents have
been sanctioned by the competent planning authority. This Authority, at the interim
stage, cannot restrain implementation of sanctioned plans unless a strong prima facie
illegality is demonstrated. The Complainant has not established such exceptional
circumstances warranting interim interference.

30. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case warranting
grant of interim relief at this stage. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of
the Complainant. Hence, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. Accordingly,
I proceed to pass the following order: -
[
O R D E R

1. The interim reliefs sought by the Complainant in the present complaint are
hereby rejected.

CC12503766

2. The Respondents, being the Promoters/Developers, are directed to strictly
comply with the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 while making any alterations or modifications in the
sanctioned plans, if any.

3. The present complaint shall proceed for further hearing and adjudication on
merits.

4. No order as to costs.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-II, MahaRERA
Date: - 10.03.2026
RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.10
11:03:36 +05'30'