Click Here for the detailed analysis
Irrevocable blanket consent taken from flat buyers will not help builders who want to construct additional floors that were not mentioned in original plans at the time of sale, the Bombay high court (HC) has said.
“No such irrevocable consent can be imputed or taken since express previous consent is required to be obtained for all additions and alterations after the plans and specifications (of the building) are disclosed,” said Justice Roshan Dalvi. “No such consent can be expressly given and every (developer) would be required to take express previous consent of all the flat purchasers for all such additional construction… not incorporated in the approved plans.”
The HC upheld a civil court order restraining city-based builder Shah and Modi Developers from adding more floors to Swapnalok building in Malad. Advocate S C Naidu, counsel for the developer, said there was express consent given by the flat buyers at the time of purchase that no permission would be required from them if the developer wanted to make any additional construction and they would not raise any objection.
The judge said that such a clause was “wholly inconsistent with and contrary to legislative mandate” of section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. The provision says that a builder has to take the consent of all flat buyers for making any alterations in or additions to the structure of the flats or of the building after plans and specifications are disclosed at the time of sale.
Shah and Modi cited another clause in the agreement which mentioned that the developer can acquire additional construction rights in the form of TDR (transfer of development rights) to add floors. They also pointed to the foundation plan of the building, which showed that it was capable of bearing up to six floors.
But the HC said this did not constitute express consent and the approved plan disclosed at the time of purchase was admittedly up to four floors.
“Upon seeing the lack of consent… a prima facie case for restraint on further construction is made out,” said the HC while dismissing the builder’s plea to vacate a stay on construction from the sixth floor onwards.
For the Times of India story – Click here
For the judgement of the High Court given by Justice Roshan Dalvi – Click Here
A very interesting detailed analysis for Builders and Real Estate Developers including aspects of Taxation for members such as
Liability of Income/Capital Gain Tax, if any, on:-
all this, along with important decided case laws
Click Here for the detailed analysis –
In land-starved Mumbai, managing committees of cooperative housing societies tango with builders to beat the law and browbeat flat owners by opting to redevelop buildings
According to legal and realty experts, while the laws are generally good, society MCs take advantage of sundry shortcomings to connive with builders at the time of executing redevelopment contracts. As a result, tens of redevelopment cases end up in courts. While cases between housing societies and their members land in cooperative courts, a feud among a society, its members and a third party goes to the high court.
At the ward/department level, there are lakhs of cases of such disputes.
The government’s taciturn approach does not help either – legal experts say the departments concerned turn a blind eye to the “dictatorial manner” in which MCs function by flouting laws and disregarding rules.
Many experts are of the view that the Redevelopment Directives of January 2009 U/S 79 are broad guidelines, and are one-sided – they are meant only for members to follow and lack any provision for penalty or punishment for the errant builders. Despite many projects being delayed, no builder has so far been put behind bars, prompting Dilip Shah, senior counsel, redevelopment, to quip, “This is a major lacuna. And builders know that a common man cannot afford to get into a long-drawn legal battle.”
Click Here for the full story
BMC wants 79A clearance from Registrar before approving redevelopment
By Accommodation Times News Services
All the redevelopment plans put up by either builder or society itself for redevelopment must accompany a certificate from the Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society who have observed section 79A procedures laid down by Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act 1960.
The Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Pallika will not entertain any proposal for redevelopment. Section 79A is guide lines set up by State Government of Maharashtra for smooth procedure and unbiased process for redevelopment for societies.
J.B.Patel (Jeby)
Mobile:9820538570
BMC Circular dt 15-04-2013 regd CHS Redevelopment (Marathi)
BMC Circular dt 15-04-2013 regd CHS Redevelopment (Unofficial English Translation)
Dear All,
Courtesy : HEMA SAMPAT
BARKING FOR PARKING:
J.B.PATEL – JEBY
MAHARASHTRA CHS & RTI UNION
24.05.2013
1) QUESTION: CAN A MEMBER HOLD PARKING SPACE / STILT IF HE HAS PURCHASED THE SAME?
ANSWER: Builder has to provide a mandatory parking space to a certain number of flats dependant on the size of every flat as per the provisions of the Development Control Regulations. Parking space is not counted in F.S.I calculation and is the property of the society. Hence, by the same reason and also as IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2007, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd .Appellant Vs. Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited., versus Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, the Builder is NOT entitled to sell you Parking Space outside the FSI consumed which was further confirmed IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Apellant Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
2) QUESTION: WHETHER THE ALLOTMENT OF PARKING SPACES / STILTS SHALL BE MADE BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE BASIS OF ‘ FIRST COME FIRST SERVEDOR UNSOLD AND AVAILABLE PARKING SPACE?
ANSWER: Builder has no right to sell any car patking space. The reason is when a flat purchaser is purchasing a flat, he is paying certain amount for the common areas and amenities appurtenant to the primises.
The common parking area / stilts is the property of the said society as per the said High Court order and also as per the various provisions of DCR & MOFA Act. But, be advised that this common parking area does not include the parking space that is reserved for each flat as per the provisions of DCR. Hence, this common parking space is the property of the society and the society can allot it on ‘First Come First Serve” basis or in any other manner in accordance to decisions of all the members, within the frame work of the Model Bye-Laws & MCS Act, 1960.
3) QUESTION: WHO OWNS THE CHS PARKING SPACE?
ANSWER:
a) The CHS “Solely” owns the common spaces (Stilt, Open or whatever)
b) The members DO NOT own the common spaces (Stilt, Open or whatever)
c) Allotment of Parking space is a “Administrative function” and the MC as well as General Body are empowered to allot the parking space to its own Registered members
d) Registered members include family members and associate members
e) Tenant’s are Nominal Members and have no rights of a regular member, which includes having no rights of parking of parking in the CHS premises. However, at the discretion of the MC, parking can be an extended as humanitarian facility to the nominal members.
f) Parking area (Stilt, Open or whatever) is not covered under Floor Space Index (FSI) and hence is not saleable, as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Nahalchand vs. Panchali CHS.
g) The bye-law provision pertaining to Parking “RIGHTS” is a gross violation of the
various BMC & Fire act rules and has got no force of law, in Court of Law.
4) QUESTION: CAN THE MC REFUSE TO ALLOT PARKING SPACES TO ITS MEMBERS ?
ANSWER:
a) Parking space limitation (numbers) is decided by the Lay-Out-Plan (LOP) as sanctioned by the civic body (like BMC)
b) and under the Development Control rules (DC rules)
c) and under the Fire Act rules
d) The MC is bound not to violate the LOP & DC Rules & Fire Act rules, regarding the way common spaces are to be maintained.
5) QUESTION: WHAT IS THE TYPICAL PARKING CHARGES LEVIED BY CHS?
ANSWER:
a) Parking charges may be determined amongst the GB members, directing the MC to implement the GB directions.
b) Parking “charges”are not equivalent to Parking “penalty” for violations of Parking spaces & usages.
c) Parking charges may be from 10/- to 10,000/- or anything per vehicle, per month, BUT as decided by the GB, BUT this is again applicable “ONLY” to Registered members including his family members and associate members.
d) Nominal member is not a registered member. Hence parking charges do not apply to him. Hence Parking space can be denied to Nominal members, even if parking space is allotted to registered members including his family members and associate members, since Parking space is not a right granted to the registered members.
6) QUESTION: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTANANCE OF PARKING SPACES?
ANSWER:
a) The MC is responsible for the upkeep & safety of the Parking spaces and for the safety of the members Parked vehicles rwsonable precautions may be taken by MC.
c) The member who parks his vehicle with the permission of the MC and pays Parking charges, can file Civil Cases, Criminal Cases and Consumer Court cases, against the CHS, for any “Negligence & Deficiency” in parking facility, vehicle damages etc….
d) The MC is liable to provide Common area lights, Security services to the CHS common areas, Sweeper charges to the parking area, path-way repair & maintenance etc…
7) QUESTION: CAN PARKING DEPOSIT BE COLLECTED?
ANSWER:
a) Parking space is a Common area and Deposit for Parking space cannot be collected, even if passed by the GB.
b) MCS RULE 39 restricts rights of society to raise funds.
c) Deposit means refundable, interest free, or whatever.
8) QUESTION: HOW TO ALLOT PARKING SPACES?
ANSWER:
a) Depending on the number of lawful Parking spaces (under BMC rules) and number of member vehicles, Parking space may be tentatively allotted on yearly Rotation usage system, which depends on cyclic First Apply First Allotment system.
b) More than one parking space may not be allotted to a member IF other members
parking requirements are not fulfilled.
9) QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT PENALTY ON PARKING OFFENSES? (Open, Stilt or whatever):
ANSWER:
a) Penalty in a CHS is a “Fine” for violations of the CHS rules & conditions and Resolutions passed in the GB directing the MC to implement the GB directions applicable to them.
b) Penalty amount may be fixed and decided by the GB and but levied to a member only after after giving opportunity to the member.
c) However, by virtue of elections and the MCS Bye-Law no 136 of the old Bye-Laws and MCS Bye-Law no 138 of the new Model Bye Laws read as under “The members of the Committee shall be jointly and severally liable for making good any loss which the society may suffer on account of their negligence or omission to perform any of the duties and functions cast on them under the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society.”
d) In case of dispute of Penalty amount levied by the MC, the member may approach the local Ward Deputy Registrar / Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies, for redressal of his grievances.
As per New Model Bye Laws (as amended in 2009) Bye Law No.166: The general body meeting, after considering the say of the member and after giving him hearing, may levy penalty at the rate fixed by the meeting of the general body of the society but not more than Rs.1000.
MOFA, is very clear on a part of parking space, stilt and open to sky. Builders do not have any right to sell these spaces, as per lot of judgments. In spite of Supreme Court judgment, some of the builders are known to sell such spaces for lakhs of rupee. If anybody wants to fight, our litigation system is so lengthy, and expansive. As per D.C. Rule builders have to keep 10% (increased to 25% in some areas) parking space in every building project, reserved for the visitors.
1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2007 Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd .Appellant Vs. Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited. ..Respondent
2) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010 Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Apellant Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Respondent
Note: The said High Court Order of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd versus Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited was challenged in the Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also upheld the Judgment of the Bombay High Court i.e. “Builder cannot sell parking slots in the stilt area as independent flats or garage”
IF THE BUILDER HAS ALREADY SOLD PARKING SPACE:
Under Section 78 of MOF Act, The allotment of parking space/ stilts shall be made by the Managing Committee on the basis of ‘first come first served’ for unsold and available parking spaces. In a judgment by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission authenticated the Cooperative Housing Societies that they can redistribute parking spaces sold and allotted by the Developer after adopting a suitable bye-law. The Commission ruled that the allotment of parking space is a matter that has be decided by the Housing Society. The Commission’s verdict was delivered on February 21, 2012 while deciding a complaint filed by Thane-based elderly couple. The complainants who had purchased a flat in one of the Housing Societies in Thane, had approached the Commission in May last year after they were physically restrained by employees of the Developer from parking their vehicle in a stilt parking space sold to another flat purchaser in the same Society. The complainants alleged that they were thereafter compelled to park their vehicle outside the Society compound.
The Commission ruled that Managing Committee of the Cooperative Housing Society can now decide fresh parking arrangements by cancelling the allotment of parking spaces made by their Builder by adopting a suitable bye-law. The complainants sought compensation from the Developer for selling parking spaces in breach of provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The Developer contended that he had never agreed to sell or allot any parking space to the complainants. The Commission discarded the Developer’s contention, reiterating the settled legal position that the Developer cannot sell or allot any parking space, which forms part of the common amenities of the Housing Society.
Click Here for on interesting in-depth article on Tax-Guru
J.B.Patel (Jeby)
Housing Societies’ Activist!
Mobile:9820538570
12._Contact_Numbers_of_District_Deputy_Registrar_and_Competent_Authority_Deemed_Conveyance.PDF
11._Deemed_Conveyance_-_Form_of_Application__Form_No.7_
10._Deemed_Conveyance_-_Form_of_Application_for_Registration_of_Society__Form_No.6_
9._Deemed_Conveyance_-_GR_-_07.12.2012_-_15.12.2012_to_30.06.2013
8._Deemed_Conveyance_-_GR_on_Documents_Required_-_26.11.2012
7._Deemed_Conveyance_-_No_Notice_to_Owners_in__cases_on_Non-Govt_Lands_Maha_GR_-_23.11.2012 6._Notice_Letter_to_Builder_and_Land_Owner_for_Conveyance_Deed__Deemed_Conveyance_Deed_Execution 5._Essential_Documents_Required_for_Deemed_Conveyance_G.R._Dated_25.02.2011
4._Deemed_Conveyance_Requirements_-_Hemant_Agarwal
1._Solutions_to_Conveyance_Problems.doc
MAHARASHTRA CHS RTI Union
For FREE membership, write to < gladiator4mc@gmail.com > , < jebypatel@rediffmail.com >
Visit:
Guidance to victimized members of a CHS:
http://tinyurl.com/4-pt-attack-on-corrupt-mg-cmte
Andheri Panchvati CHS Ltd.case study of harassment – 23.05.2013:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4wUjYmxbjtzWUtuZkxSX1lISDg/edit?pli=1
http://www.facebook.com/jebypatel
http://soundcloud.com/jebypatel/90-8-radio-broadcast-housing
For Co-op Socy. Problems : http://tinyurl.com/Co-opSocyProblems
http://tinyurl.com/4RTIForms
http://tinyurl.com/LandmarkCourtOrders
http://tinyurl.com/ImpGRsCirculars
http://tinyurl.com/BldgPropDepts
http://tinyurl.com/RTILandmarkOrders
Website of DDR III: ddr3csmumbai.org
Website of MHADA http://www.mhada.org/
Website of Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar,
Cooperative Societies (CC & RCS), Maharashtra State, Pune:
https://sahakarayukta.maharashtra.gov.in/SITE/Home/Home.aspx
Website of CIC: www.sic.Maharashtra.gov.in
http://rti.india.gov.in/sitemap.php
Website of Maharashtra Govt.: www.Maharashtra.gov.in
Website of Bombay High Court: http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/
Website of Prime Ministers office http://www.pmindia.gov.in/
Website of Deemed Conveyance related GRs and Circulars:
http://housing.maharashtra.gov.in
Website for Legal Advice: http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.in/2012/04/legal-options.html
1. Section has been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2013.
2. Deductor & Deductee: Any person (being a transferee) responsible for paying (other than person referred to in section 194LA) to a Resident transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other agricultural land in rural area in India), is liable to deduct the TDS under this section.
3. Time of deduction: At the time of payment or credit to the transferor in the books of transferee, whichever is earlier.
4. Rate of TDS:-
a. In case of PAN of Deductee is available-1%
b. In case of NO PAN of Deductee is available-20%
5. Limit: No TDS is to be deducted when consideration is less than Rs 50, 00,000.
6. Provision of TAN not applicable.
7. Immovable property means any land or building or part of building. Such may be situated in India or may be situated out of India.
——————————————
Click Here to read further views / opinions also
Some more comments are available here
Consumer Resources 