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

Greater Faridabad Welfare Association meetings and important events information section

Re: GFWA General Body Meeting - 22 April 2012 - Minutes of meeting

Postby dheerajjain » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:50 am

Supreme Court ruling is with respect to maintenance charges levied by private developers like DLF, Ansals etc. In this ruling, SC came down very heavily on Director, Town and Country Planning. SC bluntly said that the director is not authorized to interfere with agreements voluntarily entered into by and between the owner/ colonizer and the purchasers of plots/ flats. That is why there is a need for Real Estate Regulatory Body which GFWA has been campaiging for and which Govt. is NOT bringing because of pressures exerted by DLF, Unitech etc. Real Estate Regulatory Body is in cold storage for many years now. Only option that is left with buyers is protests since there is NO law to prevent buyers interests

Here is Times of India article published on Nov 26, 2010

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ce-charges


GURGAON: A recent Supreme Court judgment has upheld the plea of DLF and Ansals, the biggest private developers in Gurgaon, to collect maintenance charges from plot owners in their jurisdiction. In its judgment dated November 19, the apex court held that the director of town and country planning (DTCP) had no authority to direct developers to stop charging the fees and it also set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, which had upheld the directives earlier issued by the department.

The court said, The director is not authorized to interfere with agreements voluntarily entered into by and between the owner/ colonizer and the purchasers of plots/ flats. The agreed terms and conditions by and between the parties do not require the approval or ratification by the director nor is the director authorized to issue any direction to amend, modify or alter any of the clauses in the agreement entered into by and between the parties.




Ads by Google

Supertech Residential AptOn Yamuna Expressway Starts@14 Lacs Only ,Limited Offer! http://www.supertech-grandcircuit.co.in
Residential Apartment@97L3-4 BHK 'Supertech ORB' Project Construction In Full Swing, Apart ! supertechorbnoida.org/Apartment


Earlier, the DTCP had issued orders asking the developer to delete the provision extension fee and maintenance fee from the agreement entered between the developer and the plot/ flat buyers as the same is not permissible under the law. It had also directed the developers to stop charging extension fee and maintenance fee from the plot/flat holders and the charges recovered on account of both from them may be refunded to the government immediately.

It had further asked the developer to stop allowing the transfer of plots after obtaining full payment from the plot and flat owners and to ensure immediate registration of conveyance deed.

Later the private developers challenged the order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the governments directives.

Subsequently, the High Court order was challenged in the apex court.

Delivering the decision, the bench comprising Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar said: The directions so issued by the Director suffer from lack of power. It needs no restatement that any order which is ultra vires or outside jurisdiction is void in law, i.e. deprived of its legal effect. An order which is not within the powers given by the empowering Act, it has no legal leg to stand on. Order which is ultra vires is a nullity, utterly without existence or effect in law.
User avatar
dheerajjain
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 2010
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:55 pm
Location: Delhi

Re: GFWA General Body Meeting - 22 April 2012 - Minutes of meeting

Postby sureshwar » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:39 pm

Dear Dheeraj Jain,

Thanks for the elaborate background.

Since nothing has been said about possession delays- I feel DTCP can ask developers for reason about undue delay in handing over possession and why due EDC amounts collected from customers are not deposited with DTCP.

sINCE DEMAND of every GFWA member is possession of the highly delayed apartments- GFWA can approach DTCP that

DTCP to look into undue delay by builders in giving possession and why collected EDC is not being deposited.

Regards,
User avatar
sureshwar
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: GFWA General Body Meeting - 22 April 2012 - Minutes of meeting

Postby dheerajjain » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:19 am

GFWA had aleady submitted thousands of written complaints for all builders to DTCP and DC, Faridabad last year, but nothing happened. Delay in possession was also one of major complaint. All officers of Govt. from juniormost to seniormost are hiding behind Supreme Court judgment. There is no point debating it on forum and action needs to be shown on streets in form of protests for builder issues and visiting Chandigarh in case of EDC reliefs.
User avatar
dheerajjain
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 2010
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:55 pm
Location: Delhi

Re: GFWA General Body Meeting - 22 April 2012 - Minutes of meeting

Postby webmaster » Tue May 08, 2012 1:11 pm

Watch complete interview with Mr Dhillon and his take on revised notification letters for various builders, common malpractises by builders, Administration Helpless in handling cases, Infrastructure development and others

GFWA meet with SS Dhillon after the GFWA meeting

Video
YouTube
User avatar
webmaster
Site ADMIN
Site ADMIN
 
Posts: 950
Images: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:24 pm
Location: New Delhi

Re: GFWA General Body Meeting - 22 April 2012 - Minutes of meeting

Postby naveenarichwal » Tue May 08, 2012 2:03 pm

So it is Quite Clear that We can Protest against HUDa/Haryana Government for slow development /EDC etc issues while for delayed possesion/Bad quality of Building Material/Alteration of floor plans/Non payment of Delayed possesion penalty etc we have to aproach consumer court/Civil court.

Than so be it. if builder is cheating then why do we not approach the consumer courts, that is the BIG question.
User avatar
naveenarichwal
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:44 pm

Previous

Return to Events & Meets

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron