Also Read - MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Three Accused of Providing Equipment for Advertising Religious Conversion

After the revised map was sanctioned, the petitioner association filed a revision before the State challenging the grant of additional FAR. The revision was dismissed, and that dismissal was challenged before the High Court.

One of the principal issues before the court was whether the permission for purchase of additional area granted by individual flat owners could be overridden by objections raised by office bearers of the apartment owners’ association. The court held that it cannot be done.

Also Read - MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Alleged Journalist in Extortion Case

On the association’s argument that the consent of flat owners was obtained through coercion, Justice Kumar noted that even if consent were procured by coercion, it would not be void ab initio; at best it would be voidable. He further observed that none of the parties who had given consent had subsequently retracted it, and withdrawal of consent cannot be presumed without evidence.

The court also addressed allegations of fraud, systematic coercion and historical duress, describing them as intensely disputed questions of fact. It held that the burden of proving fraud lies squarely on the party alleging it, citing the precedent of Anil Rishi (Supra). Such matters cannot be resolved on summary pleadings under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution; they require a full trial and cross‑examination of witnesses before a competent civil court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ram Sakal Singh (Supra) and Lakshmi Singh Chauhan (Supra).

Also Read - Department Of Education Cannot Impose Recruitment Restrictions On Aided Minority Schools: Delhi High Court

Justice Kumar observed that the allottees were aware at the time of purchase that future development could be carried out by the developer. He held that once they entered into the transaction with the knowledge that the disputed area was not marked for open common spaces, they could not later raise objections to future development.

The court further noted that apartment purchasers acquire rights recognised by statute and contract, but they do not acquire a vested right that the density of a township shall remain frozen forever. What the law itself permits cannot be treated as an invasion of a vested right merely because population density subsequently increases. At best, the petitioner’s complaint pertains to greater sharing of existing facilities, not to the extinction or diminution of those facilities.

Also Read - Bombay High Court Upholds Disqualification of Co‑operative Housing Society Managing Committee Members

Finding no evidence of any violation of the approved building plans, the court concluded that unanimous permission or consent of all flat owners was not required for the development and for obtaining additional FAR by the developer. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the Great Value Sharanam Apartment Owners Association was dismissed.