Parking Split Exposes Builder to Disability Rights Backlash: Allahabad HC Fortifies PWD Access in Homes

In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has expanded the frontiers of accessibility rights, declaring that persons with disabilities (PWDs) in residential complexes enjoy a fundamental right to unhindered access from parking to common facilities like lifts. Dismissing a writ petition by M/s SCC Builders Pvt. Ltd., a Division Bench of Hon'ble Atul Sreedharan, J. and Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J. (per the latter) upheld an order under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, against the builder for partitioning a 90% disabled allottee's parking space after eight years.

Allotted Space, Then Abrupt Division: The Spark of Dispute

The saga unfolded in SCC Sapphire, a group housing project in Ghaziabad's Rajnagar Extension. Mrs. Bobby Bagga, an allottee with 90% locomotor disability, secured Flat No. D-509 along with Parking No. UB-37 as per the agreement. Eight years later, the builder sold another flat and arbitrarily split her parking into UB-37A and UB-37B, allotting part to a new buyer, Virendra Singh—without her consent.

Aggrieved, Bagga complained via email and IGRS portal to the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA). On September 16, 2025, GDA officials inspected the site in the presence of both parties, parking her vehicle at various spots to test lift access. Their report dated October 25, 2025, confirmed the division caused significant hindrance. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities decided Complaint Reference No. 137/2025 on November 14, 2025, ruling in her favor. The builder challenged this via Writ-C No. 5663/2026.

'Ex Parte Injustice!' Builder's Lone Cry vs. Thorough Probe

SCC Builders' counsel argued the decision was rushed on the "first date itself," branding it ex parte and violative of natural justice. No order sheet was filed, but they claimed inadequate opportunity.

The respondents, represented by GDA counsel and State Standing Counsel, countered with evidence: the builder's representative attended hearings, admitted the original allotment wasn't cancelled, and sought time for replies—which was denied as facts were clear. The Commissioner's order detailed the GDA inspection, on-site demonstrations of Bagga's struggles, and prior notices to restore original parking (GDA letter dated October 3, 2025). No controverting documents emerged.

From UN Convention to Article 21: Weaving a Robust Rights Tapestry

The Bench meticulously unpacked the RPWD Act's ethos, rooted in India's ratification of the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). Noting summary proceedings under Section 23(3)—inquiry mandated within two weeks—the court affirmed the Commissioner's quasi-judicial role for speedy redressal, especially for high-support needs PWDs (Chapter VII, Section 44).

Central was Section 44 RPWD Act : Buildings can't get plan approval, completion certificates, or occupation without accessibility compliance per Central rules (Section 40). The original parking aligned with the approved map; its post-facto split breached this.

Elevating accessibility to a fundamental right under Article 21 , the court cited precedents: - State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma (1986 2 SCC 68): Accessibility as life/dignity right. - Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016 7 SCC 761): Equal access imperative. - Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018 2 SCC 413; 2024 1 SCC 654): Standards for builders, reasonable accommodation beyond norms. - Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021 5 SCC 370), Ravinder Kumar Dhaware v. UOI (2023 2 SCC 209): Dignity, autonomy in accommodations.

Distinguishing group standards from individual needs, the Bench held: Changes hindering PWD lift access from parking violate community living rights—extending beyond public spaces to private residences with shared amenities (lifts, gyms, playgrounds).

No prejudice to builder: GDA report uncontroverted, alternatives infeasible. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction denied absent injustice.

Pearls from the Bench: Quotes That Reshape Accessibility

  • "The 'Right to Accessibility' cannot be confined only in public places but as a fundamental right, it is also to be extended to a structure or building which is being utilized as 'community living'."
  • "Any change or hindrance to the access of common facilities (including access to lift from the parking lot), should be seen as violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
  • "An allottee with 90% disability cannot be made to run from pillar to post."
  • "Accessibility standards must be broad and standardised... where the application of disability standards may not be sufficient... principles of reasonable accommodation may apply." ( citing Rajiv Raturi )
  • "The sanctioning of the map for a building meant for community living, now ought to take into account parking space with clear and unhindered access to the common facilities like lift for PWDs."

No Relief for Builder, But Roadmaps for Inclusive Futures

The writ stood dismissed: "We decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226." Yet, proactively, the court directed U.P. Development Authorities to embed PWD guidelines in map sanctions—ensuring disability-friendly parking with direct lift access, plus pavements, playgrounds, gyms. Government must enforce RPWD accessibility at plan approval and completion stages.

This echoes media reports on the ruling, emphasizing no ex parte tag as builder's rep was heard, and parking split sans consent. Practical fallout: Builders face stricter scrutiny; PWDs gain enforceable claims in private homes. A stride toward barrier-free India.