Join us on Facebook
Become a GFWA member

Site Announcements

Invitation to RPS SAVANA Allottees to join Case in NCDRC against RPS Infrastructures Ltd


Have you submitted a rating and reviewed your project?
Rate & Review your project now! Submit your project and review.
Read Reviews! Share your feedback!


** Enhanced EDC Stayed by High Court **

Forum email notifications...Please read !
Carpool from Greater Faridabad to Noida
Carpool from Greater Faridabad to GGN


Advertise with us

Articles from print media

Builder can’t sell common area, says HC, Haryana

Postby agarwalsanjeev » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:00 pm

Follow the link to know about common area, which builder can't sell.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/flat- ... c/520336/0

Flat breather for Gurgaon: Builder can’t sell common area, says HC
Tanushree Roy Chowdhury Posted online: Wed Sep 23 2009, 00:38 hrs

Gurgaon : In a major relief for flat owners in Gurgaon and other areas of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) to look into objections filed by residents of Silver Oaks Society in Gurgaon against their builder.
The verdict defines the status of common areas or properties in group housing complexes in the state.

The residents contend that the builder, DLF, sold off convenience shops, community centre and club, parking places and nursery school in the apartment complex to private parties.

On September 9, the High Court Bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Daya Chaudhary asked the DTCP to reexamine the declaration filed by DLF under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, while transferring properties to buyers. “The competent authority (DTCP) is to be guided by provisions, objects and spirit of the Act,” the Bench observed.

Under the Act, an apartment owner acquires right of ‘undivided interest’ in common areas and facilities (including community centres, clubs, parking space and nursery etc) in the percentage specified as part of the declaration. The Act was first notified in 1986, and again in November 1997.

The DTCP has been given six months from the date of order — September 9 — to decide on the residents’ objections. The court also ordered that owners in Silver Oaks, which has 749 apartments, who were denied membership of the condominium association be permitted to join it. The verdict said fresh elections should be held in two months under the DTCP’s supervision.

Giving its verdict, the court pointed to the sale deed, which says, “The sale price is inclusive of common services, including land or common use in the said plot of land”. This is also defined as 14.75 acres — the total area of the housing complex.

The deed also defines in the terms of group housing scheme in which external development charges, among others, includes schools, community centre, swimming pool etc.

“The coloniser (builder) cannot classify common areas as ‘apartment’ and thereby claim ownership in such areas and deny statutory rights of apartment owners,” the court held. “These common areas and facilities are indivisible and cannot be sold/divorced from the apartments under the provisions of Section 3(b) and Section 6 of the Act.

“(The) builder has no discretion to retain any such area or any facility, which is for common use, for himself.” That, the court held, is “clear breach” of the provisions of the Act.

The Bench also said that provisions of the Act would apply to every apartment lawfully constructed for residential purposes, integrated commercial complexes, flatted factories, Information Technology industrial units, cyber park and Cyber City.

Col B K Dhawan, president of the Apartment Owners Association (Haryana), and Silver Oaks Society association president A N Mehta welcomed the order, saying it will help apartment owners in many other areas.


Sanjeev Agarwal
User avatar
agarwalsanjeev
Official Member
Official Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:58 pm
Location: Indrapuram,Ghaziabad

Re: Builder can’t sell common area, says HC, Haryana

Postby anuj_bansal » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:55 pm

RPS has told us in the past that they can change the master plan anytime without informing the buyers and also that the change was done to take approvals from authorities. I think one of the main reason people like Savana is for the 85% green area which RPS had lured us with.

We may also need to go to court to save the green area and I am ready to pool in money if people are intrested in taking them to the court.

Anuj
User avatar
anuj_bansal
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:25 pm
Location: Bangalore

Re: Builder can’t sell common area, says HC, Haryana

Postby anuj_bansal » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:43 am

http://www.hotpropertyindia.com/stories ... p?sid=7925

The SOS had objected to the sale of shops, community centre and club, parking lot and nursery school on the grounds that these belonged to the apartment owners collectively and the DLF could not have retained or sold these off as its own .
For more details
http://www.hotgurgaon.com/news/news.aspx?id=41712
User avatar
anuj_bansal
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:25 pm
Location: Bangalore

SRS Real Estate Cheating

Postby waniejaz123@yahoo.com » Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:12 pm

I want to bring an open cheating, malpractice, injustice and mental harassment by builder SRS Real Estate Ltd GFWA..
Can you pls help me
User avatar
waniejaz123@yahoo.com
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:49 pm


Return to News Articles

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests