The promoter had failed to deliver the properties to the allottees, including those who had opted for the subvention scheme and the construction link plan scheme, by the agreed-upon dates and the MahaRERA completion deadline of December 2021.

MahaRERA Chairman Ajoy Mehta has directed the promoter to refund the full amounts received from certain allottees, including interest for some and without interest for others.

Additionally, the promoter must execute and register cancellation deeds, cancel the allotment letters and agreements for sale, and refund the payments made by the allottees.

For some, possession of the flats, along with the occupancy certificate (OC) and interest for the delay, must be handed over, based on the specific reliefs sought by each allottee.

However, MahaRERA dismissed a few complaints due to issues of maintainability and insufficient evidence. The authority also vacated an earlier order that had barred Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive action.

This decision was made as MahaRERA had already determined the rights of the allottees and defined the obligations of the promoter.

MahaRERA does not have jurisdiction over the tripartite agreement between the allottee, promoter, and lender, but it did instruct all parties to adhere strictly to the terms of this agreement. Complaints had been raised that the finance company had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

The MahaRERA order acknowledged the complexities involved in executing real estate projects, noting that such challenges are well-known to developers undertaking these projects.

One complainant sought a refund due to significant delays in possession of a flat booked in 2017, which was supposed to be handed over by December 2021 according to the agreement.

The complainant highlighted that the promoter had assured that under the subvention scheme, they would bear the cost until physical possession was provided, relieving the complainants of any financial burden.

Another complainant reported that a substantial loan had been disbursed by the finance company to the promoter on behalf of the homebuyers.

Additionally, a separate complainant noted that they had booked and registered an agreement for sale in March 2018, with possession promised by December 2021. As of now, there has been no progress on the construction of the C wing.

The post MahaRERA Grants Relief to Over 70 Buyers of Ruparel Skygreens Due to Delayed Possession. appeared first on .

Recently, the EOW initiated a preliminary inquiry in response to a complaint accusing Srivastava of corruption, misuse of his official position, and violation of regulatory norms.

The complaint primarily focuses on Srivastava’s alleged manipulation of the recruitment process for certain RERA positions. According to the complaint, only one of the two sanctioned posts for adjudication officers was publicly advertised, while the second post was filled without any formal public notice.

Moreover, it is alleged that Srivastava ignored the age limit requirement for contractual appointments, which states that no individual above the age of 65 should be appointed. However, Srivastava is accused of appointing someone beyond this age limit.

Another key point raised in the complaint relates to projects handled by M/s AG-8 Ventures Pvt. Ltd., a construction firm. The complainant alleges that Srivastava purchased a residential plot from the same builder, against whom an investigation is currently underway. This accusation further adds to the controversy surrounding the chairman’s role and actions.

In response to these allegations, RERA’s legal team has firmly opposed the EOW’s investigation. They argue that the inquiry is not justified, stressing that the Authority’s operations and decisions are legally protected under the RERA Act.

Specifically, section 90 of the Act provides immunity to the chairman, members, and officers from legal proceedings in their official capacity. The provision clearly states that no suit, prosecution, or any other legal proceeding can be initiated against them for actions taken while performing their duties within the Authority.

This legal protection has become a focal point in the current controversy, as Srivastava faces mounting accusations. Alongside allegations of irregular appointments, the complaint also highlights issues related to projects overseen by M/s AG-8 Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Despite the growing number of allegations and the initiation of the EOW inquiry, RERA continues to maintain its position that the investigation disregards the statutory protections outlined in the RERA Act.

To support their opposition to the EOW’s actions, RERA’s legal team has referenced several key provisions within the RERA Act. Section 28 of the Act details the procedure for appointing officers and employees from the state government on deputation to RERA.

Furthermore, section 71 mandates that the adjudicating officers are appointed by the Authority itself, with the state government merely serving a consultative role. Additionally, section 25 and Rule 21 provide the Authority with exclusive rights to make decisions and appointments regarding its operations.

Sections 28 (2) and Rule 22 (1) govern the service conditions for deputed and contract officers, while Rule 22 (2) deals with the appointment of consultants. According to RERA’s legal team, these provisions form a comprehensive framework that governs the Authority’s operations, and any action that falls outside this framework is unwarranted.

The opposition to the EOW investigation also highlights the controversy surrounding the leadership of RERA. Srivastava, a 1984-batch IAS officer, was appointed as chairman of RERA following his retirement. His appointment to the role was approved by the Urban Development and Housing Department for a five-year term.

His predecessor, IAS officer and former chief secretary Antony Disa was removed from the position in September 2020, before he could complete his term. Disa’s removal has added further intrigue to the situation, as some speculate whether similar internal tensions might have played a role in the current investigation against Srivastava.

In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh RERA is pushing back strongly against the EOW’s inquiry, asserting that the investigation into its chairman is unjustified and that the legal protections provided by the RERA Act shield its officials from such actions.

The situation continues to develop, with the legal and procedural issues surrounding Srivastava’s appointment and the operations of the Authority under the spotlight. As the inquiry proceeds, the Authority’s reliance on the RERA Act’s statutory protections will likely be closely scrutinized, particularly with how it manages appointments and handles its operations in the wake of these serious allegations.

The post State of Madhya Pradesh RERA Rejects EOW Probe into Chairman’s Allegations of Corruption appeared first on .

On August 19, FPCE President Abhay Upadhyay addressed a letter to Satinder Pal Singh, Additional Secretary of the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, expressing objections to MahaRERA’s conciliation forum. The letter calls into question the forum’s legitimacy and raises concerns about its “suspicious functioning.”

FPCE has urged the ministry to conduct a thorough investigation into the constitution and operations of this forum and the rulings it has issued to determine whether it exhibits favoritism towards builders.

“Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has constituted a Conciliation Forum for the amicable settlement of disputes between real estate project promoters and allottees under Section 32 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA),” Upadhyay stated. However, he pointed out that Section 32 of RERA merely grants the authority the power to make recommendations, not to establish such a forum independently.

FPCE has suggested that the ministry develop guidelines for establishing and functioning conciliation forums, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

“It is essential to ensure that any conciliation forum established is independent, uniform, and composed of impartial individuals of good repute, selected through a clear and fair process,” Upadhyay emphasized.

The FPCE also stressed the importance of keeping RERA authorities separate from these conciliation forums to prevent any potential conflicts of interest. The association further proposed that states with functioning Lok Adalats should prioritize these over the formation of new conciliation forums.

“In light of the serious allegations surrounding the MahaRERA conciliation forum, we respectfully request that your Ministry investigate its constitution, functioning, and the orders it has passed to ascertain whether the forum’s actions favor builders,” the association urged.

FPCE also recommended that the ministry instruct all state RERA authorities to suspend the operation of any conciliation forums until detailed guidelines are issued by the Union ministry.

FPCE claimed that MahaRERA has overstepped its legal mandate under the Act, creating potential conflicts of interest. “It is clear that this move has been made under the influence of, and to benefit, builders, which is evident from the composition of MahaRERA’s Conciliation Forum,” FPCE stated.

The association noted that the forum’s membership includes only one organization representing consumers, compared to three organizations representing builders.

Furthermore, the forum comprises just two individual consumer representatives, compared to six individual representatives for builders, indicating a bias in favor of builders, FPCE asserted in the letter.

The post Regarding MahaRERA’s decision to establish a forum to resolve builder-buyer disputes, FPCE writes to the center of inquiry. appeared first on .

Of these, approximately 130 cases have been directed to the adjudicating officer at the Lucknow office, while about 120 cases have been assigned to the Gautam Budh Nagar office.

This action follows a review conducted by Sanjay Bhoosreddy, Chairman of UP-RERA, who assessed the compliance status of orders issued in response to complaints from property allottees.

The review revealed that many promoters were deliberately delaying the delivery of possession to allottees, even though there were explicit orders for them to do so within a specified period.

In response to these delays, UP-RERA has empowered the adjudicating officers to ensure that registered sale deeds and the delivery of possession are carried out following the provisions of Rule 24 of the UP-RERA Rules, 2018.

Under this rule, adjudicating officers hold the authority of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which they will utilize to accelerate the transfer of possession and the execution of sale deeds. Furthermore, these officers can attach properties and appoint receivers to enforce compliance with the orders.

To increase the pace of action, Chairman Bhoosreddy has now established a system whereby any case in which a promoter fails to provide possession as ordered by RERA will be automatically referred to the court of the adjudicating officers by the secretary, with the chairman’s approval. This process aims to ensure that all such cases are promptly addressed without unnecessary delays.

Bhoosreddy strongly disapproved of promoters who fail to deliver possession to allottees despite clear orders from RERA. He emphasized his commitment to regularly monitoring the status of these cases and implementing all necessary measures to protect the interests of the allottees.

He further stated that UP-RERA would take stringent actions against non-compliant promoters to uphold the authority’s decisions.

The adjudicating officers are now responsible for conducting effective and timely proceedings to ensure that sale deeds are executed and possession is delivered without further delay. These officers will play a critical role in upholding the allottees’ rights by ensuring promoters adhere to their commitments.

Moreover, UP-RERA has resolved that in every case referred to the adjudicating officers for ensuring possession delivery, it will impose substantial penalties on defaulting promoters.

UP-RERA will also work in coordination with the district magistrate to ensure the recovery of penalty amounts from the promoters who fail to comply with the orders. This measure aims to deter any future delays and reinforce the importance of adhering to RERA’s directives.

The post UP-RERA Refers 250 Possession-Related Cases to Adjudicating Officers’ Courts. appeared first on .

This comes in response to a common issue where real estate firms declare insolvency while their promoters continue to thrive financially.

Some promoters exploit this situation by declaring bankruptcy and starting new companies under different names, often to avoid compensating home buyers for delays, substandard quality, or unmet commitments.

Typically, home buyers file complaints with local police or court petitions, often only naming the real estate company. They frequently overlook the requirement to include the promoters and directors of the company in their complaints.

The High Court has recently directed petitioners to return to the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) for a fresh review of their cases.

This order arose from a petition filed by Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy and Priya Vasudevan, involving multiple respondents including the state government, Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban, the Secretary of Karnataka RERA, and others.

The court noted that without including the petitioners in the RERA proceedings, it was improper for the Tahsildar to take action against them. The Judge concluded that the notices issued against the petitioners should be quashed, and the parties must be redirected to RERA for a thorough reevaluation of their grievances.

The High Court’s order instructs RERA to add the petitioners and the company directors as parties to the proceedings.

Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar, Coordinator of the Karnataka Home Buyers Forum, hailed the ruling as a crucial step for home buyers.

He advised that anyone involved in litigation with RERA or consumer courts should include the builder company’s name, as well as the names of the founders, executive directors, and landowners as respondents to seek justice.

Retired Naval Commander Surendra also stressed the importance of including promoters’ names in complaints. He called for RERA to amend its rules to ensure landowners are included in the complaint process.

The post Karnataka HC: Disgruntled Home Buyers Must Identify Promoters in Complaint. appeared first on .

In addition, UP-RERA has mandated that all industrial and housing development authorities must specify the names of the relevant towers or blocks for which a part-C.C. or O.C. is being issued. This should be done alongside listing the names of all towers or blocks within the project or project phase.

The authority has noticed that competent authorities have been issuing part-C.C. or O.C. documents with project particulars that do not match the names provided by promoters during RERA registration or in the sale agreements (BBA) between promoters and homebuyers.

Sanjay Bhoosreddy, Chairman of UP-RERA, stated, “It has come to our attention that the names of completed towers, blocks, or units listed in part-C.C.s or O.C.s issued by some planning authorities do not match the names given by promoters to UP-RERA at registration.

This discrepancy creates doubts among homebuyers and the regulatory authority. With due diligence at the planning authorities’ level, this issue can be easily resolved.”

These mismatched part-C.C.s or O.C.s cause homebuyers to question the completion status of their units or towers when it comes to executing conveyance deeds and taking possession.

To avoid these issues, UP-RERA has advised planning authorities to obtain the marketing names of the project, its towers, and blocks, along with the number of units from the promoter.

This information should be included in the application for map sanctioning and when granting completion or occupancy certificates. This approach aims to eliminate any doubts regarding the project’s or its towers’ and blocks’ completion status.

The post UP-RERA Directs Authorities to Halt Issuance of Temporary Occupancy Certificates appeared first on .

Of these 628 projects, 312 are from the Mumbai region, including Mumbai, Mumbai suburban, Thane, Nashik, and Konkan. About 250 projects are from the Pune region, covering Pune city, western Maharashtra, and Marathwada, while 66 projects are from the Nagpur region.

To protect investments, MahaRERA has urged homebuyers to avoid transactions with housing projects that lack the mandatory RERA registration number. “Promoters of housing projects are not permitted to advertise their projects without a MahaRERA registration number.

Starting August 1, 2023, it is also mandatory to display a QR code with every advertisement, enabling homebuyers to access important project information.

Despite this, some developers are violating these guidelines. Therefore, MahaRERA is always on the lookout for such advertisements and regularly initiates action against the violators,” said Ajoy Mehta, chairman of MahaRERA.

For effective enforcement of these guidelines and to identify violators, MahaRERA collaborates with the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). This partnership aims to monitor both traditional and new-age advertising formats, with the aid of artificial intelligence.

The collaboration has successfully identified violators across newspapers, websites, online video streaming channels, and social media. Notably, the violation rate is significantly higher on social media compared to traditional advertisement formats.

Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, any project in Maharashtra exceeding 500 square meters or involving more than eight apartments (including plots) must be registered with MahaRERA. No marketing activities or sales are allowed without securing this registration number.

Furthermore, starting August 1, 2023, developers are required to provide detailed project information, including the project’s name, developer’s name, registration renewal status, expected completion date, pending complaints, litigations, and any recovery warrants. This information can be accessed by scanning the project’s QR code.

Despite these mandatory requirements, some developers continue to disregard the guidelines, prompting MahaRERA to initiate suo motu action and issue show-cause notices to the violators.

The post MahaRERA Takes Action Against 628 Projects for Registration and QR Code Non-Compliance appeared first on .

Developers of these projects failed to meet Quarter-End (QE) compliances by not updating the project completion status with GujRERA within the specified deadline or seeking an extension.

This action will affect numerous developers in Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, and Rajkot, as it prohibits them from advertising or selling the remaining units of these projects. Moreover, the developers cannot seek credit for these projects.

“A developer is required to adhere to project-completion compliance norms laid out by GujRERA. This means the details of project completion must be updated with GujRERA by the date mentioned at the time of registration.

In case the developer fails to complete the project by the specified date, an extension needs to be sought from GujRERA. The authority learned that developers have not completed compliance for at least 1,000 projects, or even applied for extensions,” said a top GujRERA official, requesting anonymity.

“We have canceled the registration of all such projects,” added the official. Most of these projects were launched in 2018-19 and had promised a project completion date in the first half of 2024, according to the official.

GujRERA has also provided details of each of these projects to the State Level Bankers’ Committee (SLBC) – Gujarat, urging them to freeze RERA-registered bank accounts of all these projects.

“This means developers of these projects cannot sell the remaining units because they cannot receive money in the registered bank account. Additionally, as RERA registration is canceled, they cannot advertise the project,” the official stated.

Interestingly, these 1,000+ projects also include those that are already completed, and buyers have been granted possession. “However, in many such cases, the Building Use (BU) permission is pending, and therefore, developers are not able to complete the QE compliance.

The post Gujarat RERA Halts Over 1,000 Project-Linked Bank Accounts. appeared first on .

According to Section 22 of the RERA Act, candidates for the K-RERA Chairperson role must possess a minimum of 20 years of professional experience in areas such as urban development, housing, real estate development, infrastructure, economics, planning, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, management, social service, public affairs, or administration.

Home buyers are urging the state government to appoint a well-qualified and knowledgeable individual with integrity for the K-RERA Chairperson position, expressing concerns about the appointment of individuals lacking real estate and construction expertise.

“The state government appointed HC Kishore Chandra as K-RERA Chairperson and former Karnataka Director General of Police Neelamani Raju as its member. Both are not familiar with real estate issues. It is unclear why the state government is rehabilitating two retired police officers.

K-RERA should not become a rehabilitation center for retired officers favored by the government,” said retired Naval veteran Commander Surendra.

Home buyers have voiced complaints about unresolved cases with K-RERA and its failure to enforce orders against builders violating norms. Karnataka Home Buyers Forum Sanchalak Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar stated, “Home buyers in Karnataka are not receiving justice under RERA due to the lack of proper guidance from the RERA Chairman in the past.

Complaints are not addressed promptly, orders are not executed, and there is no direction on Apartment Allottees Association registration and Common Area Transfer as per Section 17 of RERA since 2017.”

Padmanabhachar emphasized that other states have implemented Section 17 and provided directions. He hopes the government will appoint a knowledgeable and experienced RERA Chairman who can effectively implement the RERA Act to benefit home buyers in Karnataka.

The post Karnataka Government Seeks New K-RERA Chairperson. appeared first on .

In order to address the complaints of homeowners, the regulator has reviewed the matter and is currently preparing to take legal action against the developers who have disregarded the August 2023 mandate.

These cells must have at least one complaint redressal officer assigned to them in accordance with the regulator’s mandate. Adherence to this clause will be a crucial factor in the suggested assessment of projects by the regulatory body.

“Business expansion in the service sector requires the development of trust. The construction industry has only been acknowledged thus far as a product sector. It is now beginning to expand as a service industry. It is imperative to have a grievance redressal procedure in place in such a situation. The chairman of MahaRERA, Ajoy Mehta, stated, “MaharERA has instructed the establishment of a grievance redressal cell in every project and has asked the stakeholders to take prompt action to further the sector’s credibility.”

When buying or registering a property, the buyer typically communicates with the project’s sales and marketing staff. On the other hand, these buyers are ignorant of any project-specific channels for resolving concerns should they come up later.

This makes it difficult for the homebuyer to get their problems addressed quickly, which causes miscommunications and complaints long after the project is finished. The project’s timeline may be impacted by this lack of communication.

The regulator had emphasized that these problems might be managed if every developer established a specific grievance redressal cell for their own projects. This would ensure that the complainant received timely, official, and trustworthy information.

Both the developer’s website and the project site should have a prominent display of the redressal cell’s details, including the officers’ names and coordinates.

The post Despite the MahaRERA guideline, just 195 projects established grievance redressal cells. appeared first on .