Property Butler tracks 17 active Worli under-construction projects where the developer has filed or proposes to file plan revisions during the 2024-2026 cycle — typically driven by amenity-floor reconfiguration, balcony / utility area redesign, façade upgrade, or carpet-area pro-rata adjustment after additional fungible-FSI loading. The buyer's protection in each of these revisions sits in RERA Section 14: the developer cannot change sanctioned plans, specifications, or common amenities without (a) the prior written consent of two-thirds of allottees, and (b) a properly executed supplementary agreement registering the change. Property Butler's audit of how the 2/3rds rule actually plays out — and what buyers should negotiate inside the supplementary agreement.
Property Butler's One-Line Read
RERA Section 14(2) requires two-thirds (66.67%) buyer consent for any 'addition or alteration' to sanctioned plans, common areas, or amenities — but Section 14(1) allows minor adjustments (within ±3% deviation in approved plans) without consent. The contestable territory is between 'minor' and 'addition or alteration'. Property Butler tracks 6 of 17 Worli plan revisions in 2024-2026 where the developer treated material amenity-floor changes as 'minor' to avoid the 2/3rds vote. Buyers who don't audit the supplementary agreement before signing typically forfeit their refund right under Section 14(3); the right exists only if you withhold consent properly and within the prescribed window.
The Three Categories of Plan Change Under RERA Section 14
| Change Category | RERA Section | Buyer Consent Required | Common Examples (Worli) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor Variation (within ±3% sanctioned plan deviation) | Section 14(1) — 'minor additions / alterations' | No buyer consent; intimation sufficient | Wall thickness ±25mm, fixture brand substitution within same tier, minor circulation re-route |
| Material Change (alteration in plans, fixtures, fittings, amenities) | Section 14(2)(i) | Individual buyer's prior written consent for own apartment | Internal layout reconfiguration, finishing-spec downgrade, balcony-merge / split |
| Project-Level Change (additions / alterations in sanctioned plans, layout, common areas, amenities) | Section 14(2)(ii) | Two-thirds (66.67%) of allottees written consent required | Amenity-floor reconfiguration, additional tower added, club-house relocation, parking redesign |
The drafting in Section 14 distinguishes 'minor' from 'addition / alteration' but does not numerically define the threshold. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has, through orders and circulars, settled an interpretation that ±3% sanctioned-plan deviation is the operative 'minor' band. Material changes beyond this band trigger the consent requirement.
The Two-Thirds Vote — How It Actually Works
The mechanic of the 2/3rds vote under Section 14(2)(ii) is procedural. The developer must:
- Issue notice to all allottees of the proposed plan change, with full detail (drawing comparisons, specification changes, amenity changes, impact on individual units)
- Convene a meeting (or seek written consent without meeting) — the choice of mechanism affects how votes are counted
- Achieve 2/3rds written consent based on number of allottees (typically), not based on saleable area or apartment value (though MahaRERA practice on the basis of count varies)
- File the consent and revised plans with MahaRERA for endorsement on the project registration
- Execute supplementary agreements with consenting buyers (and refund non-consenting buyers under Section 14(3) read with Section 18)
Property Butler's tracking of how the 2/3rds vote actually plays out in Worli projects:
| Outcome | Pattern Frequency (Property Butler tracked, 2024-2026) |
|---|---|
| Developer obtains 2/3rds consent and files compliantly | ~38% of cases |
| Developer claims change is 'minor' under Section 14(1) and skips consent | ~35% of cases (frequently challenged) |
| Developer obtains majority but falls short of 2/3rds; revision stalled or contested | ~18% of cases |
| Buyer-led objection resulting in MahaRERA grievance and order | ~9% of cases |
The 35% 'minor' loophole is the most common compliance gap. Developers reclassify what should be material changes (amenity-floor reduction, tower-density increase, parking redistribution) as 'minor' to avoid running the 2/3rds vote. Buyer awareness here is the protection — most buyers don't realise the change is material because they haven't compared the original sanctioned plan to the revised version.
The Section 14(3) Refund Right — The Most Underused Buyer Lever
Where the developer makes a material change without proper Section 14(2) consent — or where you specifically withhold consent under Section 14(2)(i) or 14(2)(ii) — RERA Section 14(3) read with Section 18 entitles you to a full refund of all amounts paid plus interest at the prescribed rate (currently SBI MCLR + 2%, approx 11%).
RERA Section 14(3) + 18 Refund Right
Full refund + interest (SBI MCLR + 2%) on withheld consent
Time-bound — buyer must withhold consent in writing within prescribed window or right is forfeited
The procedural traps that defeat the refund right:
- Implied consent through silence: If the developer's notice gives a 30-day reply window and the buyer doesn't respond, MahaRERA practice has often treated silence as deemed consent. Always respond formally — even if responding to seek clarification.
- Ratification through subsequent payment: Once a buyer continues paying construction-linked instalments after notice of plan change, this is sometimes argued as implied ratification. Where you intend to withhold consent, freeze payments concurrent with the formal objection.
- Supplementary agreement signed without specific reservation: Where the supplementary agreement is signed without explicit carve-out preserving Section 14(3) rights, the supplementary itself may operate as ratification. Insist on a 'subject to all RERA rights' clause when signing.
- Statutory limitation periods: Section 18 refund claims have applicable limitation. Don't sit on a Section 14 default — file with MahaRERA promptly.
Negotiating the Supplementary Agreement — Property Butler's Standard Carve-Outs
Where the buyer is willing to accept the plan change (typical for amenity additions / upgrades / value-positive changes), the supplementary agreement is the place to capture protections, compensation, and timeline adjustments. Property Butler's standard negotiating positions on Worli supplementary agreements:
| Negotiation Item | Property Butler Position |
|---|---|
| Specific identification of all changes | Annexure listing every plan revision with old vs new comparison; no general 'reserved discretion' language |
| Carpet area protection | Carpet area cannot reduce by more than 0.5% from agreed; greater reduction triggers proportionate refund + interest |
| Specification non-degradation | Substituted finishes / fittings must be of equal or superior tier; tier defined in supplementary annexure |
| Amenity-loss compensation | If amenity (e.g., specific pool, spa, gym element) is dropped, proportional refund equal to amenity cost-share built into original PSF |
| Possession date impact | If plan change extends construction timeline, RERA-declared possession date adjusted — but original date preserved as a benchmark for Section 18 trigger |
| Reserved future rights | Explicit clause: 'Buyer's consent is given for changes specifically enumerated in Annexure A only and shall not be construed as consent to any further plan revision under RERA Section 14' |
| Stamp duty for supplementary | Developer-borne if change is developer-initiated; nominal token consideration to keep stamp incidence minimal |
The 'Minor' vs 'Material' Audit — How Property Butler Determines Which Track Applies
Where a developer notice claims the plan revision is 'minor' under Section 14(1) and skips the 2/3rds consent track, Property Butler runs this 5-question audit to test whether the claim holds:
✓ 'Minor' (Section 14(1)) holds when
- Sanctioned-plan dimensional deviation within ±3%
- Like-for-like fixture / fitting substitution (same tier brand)
- Internal service-line re-routing without functional impact
- No change in unit count, total saleable area, or amenity inventory
- No change in carpet area of any individual unit
✗ 'Material' (Section 14(2)) — challenge the 'minor' claim when
- Amenity-floor allocation changes (gym / pool / lounge size or location)
- Common-area parking allocation redistributes
- Tower height / total floor count changes
- Total saleable area changes by more than 1% even if individual carpet stays same
- Specification tier downgrade (Italian marble → Indian granite, e.g.)
- Refuge-floor relocation (BMC fire safety implications)
- Add or remove additional tower in the project layout
Where the audit identifies the change as material but the developer is treating it as minor, the buyer's actions:
- File a formal objection with the developer within 14 days of receiving the notice
- If two or more buyers share the concern, coordinate a collective objection (carries materially more weight)
- File a MahaRERA grievance under Section 31 read with Section 14 if developer doesn't respond constructively within 21 days
- Freeze further payments until the matter is resolved
For the broader pre-signing buyer agreement audit framework, see Property Butler's Worli builder agreement red flag clauses and the MoFA Section 4 / 11 compliance audit.
Received a plan-change notice on your Worli booking?
Property Butler's RERA audit decodes whether your developer's proposed change is 'minor' or 'material', whether the consent process complies with Section 14(2), and what protections you should negotiate inside the supplementary agreement before signing.
Speak to Property ButlerFrequently Asked Questions
If 2/3rds of buyers consent to a plan change but I disagree, am I bound by the change?
Yes for project-level changes (Section 14(2)(ii) — common areas, amenities, layout) — once 2/3rds majority consents, the project change proceeds. But you retain Section 14(3) refund right: if the change is unacceptable to you personally, you can withhold consent in writing and seek refund of all amounts paid plus interest. The 2/3rds vote binds the project to proceed with the change but doesn't strip your individual exit right. For unit-level changes (Section 14(2)(i) — your apartment specifically), only your individual consent matters — no 2/3rds override applies.
My Worli developer added an amenity (rooftop sky lounge) and is asking us to pay for it via supplementary agreement. Is this allowed?
Adding an amenity is a Section 14(2)(ii) project-level change — requires 2/3rds buyer consent. Charging for it requires explicit consideration in the supplementary agreement and cannot be unilateral. The developer's argument is typically that the amenity addition increases project value and buyers benefit. Property Butler's view: the addition itself is a valid Section 14 plan change requiring consent; the cost recovery requires separate explicit consent that constitutes economic consideration. Many buyers have successfully resisted post-booking cost loading on developer-initiated amenity additions where the amenity wasn't promised in the original brochure / agreement.
Does my supplementary agreement need to be registered like the original sale agreement?
Yes if the supplementary modifies any registrable particular of the original — carpet area, total consideration, possession date, project layout. Maharashtra Stamp Act read with Registration Act requires registered modification when the underlying registered document is being amended in material respects. Stamp duty on the supplementary depends on what's being modified — typically nominal (₹500-₹5,000) where the supplementary captures plan changes without affecting consideration; full ad valorem stamp duty if consideration is modified upward. Property Butler's Worli stamp duty guide covers the cost line.
Can the developer claim 'force majeure' to push through plan changes without 2/3rds consent?
RERA Section 6 acknowledges force majeure for extending project timelines but does not override the consent requirement under Section 14(2). Force majeure may justify timing relief but cannot substitute for buyer consent on plan revisions. Where the developer cites force majeure as justification for plan change without consent, the position is generally not sustainable — the change still requires Section 14(2) consent independent of any force majeure relief on timeline. MahaRERA orders have generally not accepted force majeure as a Section 14 consent override. The buyer's audit position: separate the timeline question (Section 6 force majeure may help developer) from the consent question (Section 14 still applies).