Among these are prominent projects such as Lokhandwala’s development at Worli Naka and a Lodha project in Dombivli. This development adds to the growing number of deregistration requests, with MahaRERA having received applications for deregistration of nearly 400 projects to date.

Promoters typically file for deregistration under specific circumstances, including when there are zero bookings for the project, financial difficulties, the project’s infeasibility, or new directives issued by planning authorities that affect the viability of the development.

To ensure transparency, MahaRERA has made the list of these 19 projects publicly available on its website, keeping homebuyers informed about the status of these developments.

Of the approximately 400 deregistration applications received, MahaRERA has approved around 200, while the remaining requests are at various stages of review and processing.

According to officials, the reasons cited for deregistration are consistent: projects with no bookings, financial hardships faced by the promoters, project feasibility issues, or challenges arising from planning authority notifications.

For a deregistration request to be considered, it is mandatory that the specific project or phase in question has zero bookings. If the deregistration impacts other phases of a larger project, the developer is required to secure consent from at least two-thirds of the allottees in the affected phases before proceeding with the application.

In February of the previous year, MahaRERA formally outlined the conditions under which projects could be deregistered.

Promoters may withdraw their projects if they cannot commence or complete construction due to reasons such as lack of funds, economic unviability, legal disputes, or changes introduced by planning authorities that adversely affect the project. This policy aims to address stalled projects pragmatically and to offer relief to both developers and buyers.

“MahaRERA conducts a thorough scrutiny of each deregistration application,” stated a MahaRERA official. “This includes examining the project’s accounts and CA certifications to ensure that the interests of homebuyers are not compromised.

Only after all these criteria are met does the regulatory authority approve the deregistration.”
The regulatory body has emphasized that deregistration is considered a practical option for promoters struggling to proceed with their projects.

“When promoters are unable to initiate or complete construction, keeping the project registered serves no purpose. Deregistration is a necessary measure in such situations,” said a senior MahaRERA official.

However, MahaRERA has also provided avenues for recourse to affected parties. Any aggrieved individual or entity can file a complaint regarding the deregistration of a project. MahaRERA assures prompt hearings of such complaints, ensuring that due notices are served to the promoters involved.

Once a decision is reached, the terms and conditions set by MahaRERA in the deregistration order are binding on the promoter. This structured approach ensures that while deregistration addresses the concerns of promoters facing genuine challenges, it also upholds the interests of homebuyers, maintaining transparency and accountability in Maharashtra’s real estate sector.

The post Requests to Deregister 19 More Projects Are Received by Maharashtra RERA appeared first on .

These properties are held in the names of Moonlight Propbuild Pvt Ltd and Elco Global Ventures LLP and have been attached under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, in connection with a fraud case involving Hacienda Projects Private Limited, its Promoters, Directors, and others.

The ED investigation began following directives from the Allahabad High Court and after several FIRs were filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in New Delhi against Hacienda Projects Pvt Ltd (HPPL), its Promoters, Directors, officials, and others.

The allegations include diverting and misusing investors’ funds, primarily collected from home buyers, who were eventually left without the promised flats.

During the investigation, it was revealed that the Lotus 300 project in Sector 107, Noida, launched by HPPL on a land parcel measuring 67,941.45 square meters in 2010-2011, involved Builder Buyer Agreements with customers.

However, a portion of this land, measuring 27,941.45 square meters and valued at Rs 236 crore, was sold to Prateek Infraprojects Pvt Ltd in violation of the original Builder Buyer Agreement conditions.

Further inquiries revealed that approximately Rs 190 crore from the project funds was diverted to its group company, Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd.

The misappropriation of funds resulted in a severe shortage of resources to complete the project, eventually leading to the insolvency of HPPL.

This left investors without their flats, while dues owed to the NOIDA Authority remained unpaid by the company. Searches were conducted from September 17 to 20 at various locations associated with the Directors and Promoters of the Three C Group, leading to the recovery of Proceeds of Crime (POC) amounting to Rs 42 crore in cash, diamonds, jewelry, incriminating documents, and digital devices.

The investigation further revealed that the funds diverted to Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd were primarily advanced as unsecured loans to other group companies, including Moonlight Propbuild Pvt Ltd and M/s Elco Global Ventures LLP.

These funds were utilized to acquire properties in Punjab, funded by investors’ money siphoned from HPPL and layered through various companies within the Three C Group before being converted into immovable assets. The ED continues to investigate the matter in depth.

The post ED Attaches Properties Worth Rs 23.13 Crore in Punjab Under PMLA in Hacienda Projects Fraud Case appeared first on .

In a separate ruling, the court also ordered the bank to remove Pune Buildtech from its list of ‘wilful defaulters’ and to retract any information provided to Credit Information Companies that identified the company as a wilful defaulter.

The division bench, comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, noted in its October 8 order, “It is undisputed that the entire settlement amount, as specified in the Consent Terms (Rs 703.35 crore), was paid by the petitioners to Bank of India in June 2024.”

The court expressed confusion as to why the bank would continue to proceed with actions to declare Pune Buildtech a wilful defaulter, particularly after issuing the company a ‘No Dues Certificate.’

Senior Advocate Cyrus Ardeshir, along with Munaf Virjee of AMR Law, representing Pune Buildtech, argued that the company was never formally informed of its account being classified as a ‘fraud’ account. They were only notified verbally, without any prior intimation.

Regarding the ‘wilful defaulter’ declaration, Pune Buildtech contended that a show cause notice dated May 4, 2020, was sent by the Bank of India, indicating that its Identification Committee had classified the firm as a ‘wilful defaulter.’

The notice demanded that the company settle its outstanding dues within 15 days of receiving the letter, failing which it would be formally declared a wilful defaulter. However, this notice did not reach the company until July 1, 2020.

At the time of this report, neither Bank of India nor Pune Buildtech responded to email queries. Munaf Virjee, founder of AMR Law and representative of Pune Buildtech, also declined to comment.

The court, in its directive to the public sector bank, pointed out that both parties had entered into consent terms on March 22, 2024, regarding a one-time settlement (OTS).

According to these terms, upon receipt of the settlement amount, the Bank of India was required to withdraw all legal proceedings and actions taken under any law related to the matters outlined in the Consent Terms.

The dispute originated from a term loan that had been sanctioned by a consortium of lenders, including Bank of India, in 2013. The parties later agreed to the OTS in March 2024, under which Pune Buildtech committed to paying Rs 703 crore as a full and final settlement.

In two separate petitions, Pune Buildtech argued that despite fulfilling the terms of the consent agreement and receiving a ‘no dues’ certificate, the bank persisted in classifying the company as a ‘fraud’ and ‘wilful defaulter.’

The post Bombay High Court Overturns Fraud Declaration against Pune Buildtech by Bank of India appeared first on .

Delhi Apartments Pvt Ltd (DAPL), the petitioner, was allotted five plots on lease within the State Infrastructure & Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd (SIIDCUL), Haridwar, for developing residential apartments and commercial structures. While construction had begun on four plots, the fifth plot’s lease was cancelled despite no work starting there.

The regional manager of SIIDCUL issued the cancellation order on August 22, which DAPL contested in the HC. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lease cancellation for the fifth plot in Sector 5A of SIIDCUL, Haridwar, was done without giving DAPL a chance to present its case.

During a previous hearing on September 23, the HC directed the respondent’s counsel to confirm whether DAPL was given an opportunity to be heard before the cancellation. At Friday’s hearing, SIIDCUL’s counsel acknowledged that no show cause notice had been issued before the lease was revoked.

As a result, Justice Pankaj Purohit, presiding over the single bench, annulled the August cancellation order and instructed the authorities to provide DAPL with a fair chance to present its case before proceeding further.

The post Uttarakhand High Court Revokes Lease Cancellation Order Issued to Haridwar Housing Project in SIIDCUL appeared first on .

This move has brought much-needed relief to thousands of people living in these areas. Many of them have struggled for years with bureaucratic hurdles when trying to repair or renovate their homes or secure loans by mortgaging their properties.

Mutation, a critical document required for applying for a building plan, dividing property among family members, or mortgaging, is a legal process that transfers property ownership and reflects the change in the local authorities’ revenue records.

However, residents of “old urbanized” and “declared urban” villages have often been drawn into legal battles due to civic agency challenges or disputes within their families.

According to Delhi’s revenue department, of the 357 recorded villages, 135 were urbanized between the 1950s and 1994, including Hauz Khas, Humayunpur, Naraina, and Budhela. Another 174, such as Jhuljhuli, Jaunti, Nagal Thakra, Kanjhawala, and Bawana, were declared urban in 2018 and 2019, while the remaining 48 are still classified as urban.

Once villages are urbanized or declared urban, the Delhi Land Revenue Act of 1954, under which mutation is traditionally done, no longer applies. These villages fall under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, which lacks a clear mutation policy for properties in “lal dora” and extended “lal dora” areas, causing further complications.

Surendra Solanki, head of Palam 360 Khap, pointed out that the problem of property non-mutation has persisted since the first villages were urbanized. “Instead of addressing the issue, the government continued urbanizing villages without considering the consequences.

That’s why many Delhi villages have turned into slums,” Solanki remarked. He urged the government to amend relevant laws to resolve this issue. Solanki also highlighted a planned protest at Jantar Mantar on September 15 to raise awareness of the difficulties faced by village residents.

Paras Tyagi, co-founder of the NGO Centre for Youth, Culture, Law, and Environment, emphasized that the Prime Minister’s SVAMITVA scheme could offer a solution by granting ownership rights to residents of “lal dora” areas. However, he noted that the scheme has yet to be implemented in Delhi.

Tyagi added that there has long been bias against the native residents of Delhi villages, whether it concerns “lal dora” or agricultural land, both of which remain unmutated, restricting access to credit facilities.

Tyagi further explained that while the revenue department has settlement records for Delhi villages dating back to 1864-1908, which document ownership of “lal dora” and other lands, the practice of maintaining these records was discontinued by the Delhi administration.

Many ancestors of current residents were unaware of the need for mutation in the city’s fast-paced environment, exacerbating the problem.

The post Delhi HC Initiates Suo Motu Action on Property Mutation Challenges in Urbanized Villages. appeared first on .

Among these assets, EMAAR India Ltd’s properties are valued at approximately Rs 501.13 crore, while those of MGF Developments Ltd are valued at around Rs 332.69 crore.

These properties, which consist of land, are located in 20 villages across Haryana’s Gurugram district and in Delhi. The attachment was carried out by the ED’s Delhi-based unit.

The ED’s investigation centers around alleged money laundering activities linked to license no. 97/2010, dated September 18, 2010, which was issued by the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) for a Residential Plotted Colony in sectors 65 and 66 of Gurgaon.

The investigation was initiated based on an FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

This FIR targeted Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the then Chief Minister of Haryana, Trilok Chand Gupta, then Director of DTCP, EMAAR MGF Land Limited, and 14 other colonizer companies.

The case involves allegations of cheating landowners, the public, and the state of Haryana, as well as the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

The allegations include issuing notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and subsequently under section 6 of the same Act, which coerced landowners to sell their land to these colonizer companies at prices lower than the market rate before the notification under section 4.

The ED further alleges that the accused fraudulently and dishonestly obtained Letters of Intent (LOIs) and licenses on the notified land, thereby causing financial losses to the landowners, the public, and the state of Haryana, while unlawfully benefiting themselves.

According to the ED, on June 2, 2009, the Haryana government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, covering 1417.07 acres of land, which included sectors 58 to 63 and sectors 65 to 67 of Gurugram.

Subsequently, on May 31, 2010, a notification under section 6 was imposed on approximately 850.10 acres of this land. During the period from June 2, 2009, to May 31, 2010, nearly 600 acres were released from acquisition proceedings by the Haryana government, facilitating the grant of LOIs and licenses.

On April 22, 2009, EMAAR MGF Land Limited, a joint venture between EMAAR Properties PJSC, Dubai, and MGF Developments Limited, submitted an LC-1 application for a license to develop a residential plotted colony on 112.46 acres of land in sectors 65 and 66 of Gurugram.

Land measuring 70.406 acres, which was initially notified under section 4, was subsequently released from acquisition proceedings by the DTCP, and an LOI for 108.006 acres was granted to the company on May 31, 2010, after receiving internal approval from the Haryana government.

The ED states that license no. 97/2010 was eventually granted to EMAAR MGF Land Limited on November 18, 2019.

The ED’s investigation revealed that EMAAR MGF Land Limited executed six backdated development agreements with farmers for 27.306 acres of land. Although these agreements were falsely claimed to have been executed in April 2009, they were signed in March 2010.

The investigation further exposed that these collaboration agreements were backdated and fabricated, and were falsely represented as having been entered into before the notification under section 4 was issued, to avoid complications in obtaining the license from the DTCP.

As a result, EMAAR MGF Land Limited generated proceeds of crime in the form of a license on 25.887 acres of land, which is currently valued at Rs 1229.17 crore.

The investigation also revealed that the actual intent behind the land acquisition was never to benefit HUDA. Instead, it was a scheme designed to coerce farmers into selling their land to developers under the guise of agreements, driven by the looming threat of acquisition proceedings.

Later, EMAAR MGF Land Limited was split into EMAAR India Limited and MGF Developments Limited, holding 60.11 percent and 39.89 percent shares, respectively, in the combined properties.

Consequently, the ED has provisionally attached immovable properties valued at Rs 501.13 crore corresponding to EMAAR India Ltd’s 60.11 percent share of the remaining proceeds of crime (PoC), and Rs 332.69 crore corresponding to MGF Developments Ltd’s 39.89 percent share of the remaining PoC.

The post ED Attaches 401.65 Acres of Land Worth Rs 834.03 Crore Belonging to Emaar India and MGF Developments 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 .

However, a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka clarified that if any of the assets belonging to Essel Finance Advisors and Managers LLP are auctioned, the sale will be subject to the final ruling of a pending appeal.

Essel Finance has been contesting a decision made by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which dismissed their appeal and upheld an earlier order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in May 2024.

The NCLT’s order required Essel Finance to cover its portion of the costs associated with the liquidation process. Essel Finance, an investment manager handling fund management activities, had invested in redeemable secured non-convertible debentures issued by Samrudhhi Realty.

The real estate firm, burdened with debt, entered into insolvency proceedings in April 2019 and was later placed into liquidation in May 2020.

The dispute between Essel Finance and the liquidator reportedly arose when the liquidator demanded that Essel Finance contribute to the costs of the liquidation process and relinquish the security interests it held in the assets of Samrudhhi Realty.

Essel Finance had filed a claim for Rs 123.57 crore at the commencement of the liquidation process, opting to remain outside the liquidation estate to independently realize its security interests. In its appeal, the company argued that the liquidator had not been transparent regarding the details of the asset sales and their valuations.

Furthermore, Essel Finance alleged that the liquidator had made “exorbitant” demands, including a demand for Rs 5.71 crore from Essel as its share of the liquidation costs, according to senior counsel Amar Dave, who represented the firm.

During the court proceedings, Essel Finance contended that it has struggled to recover its dues through the liquidation process.

The company pointed out that one of its secured assets was sold for Rs 14.05 crore, an amount significantly higher than the Rs 5.71 crore demanded by the liquidator, yet the liquidator continues to sell additional secured assets.

Essel Finance further informed the Supreme Court that, under Regulation 2A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation 2016, only financial creditors can be asked to bear the liquidation process costs beyond the available liquid assets of the corporate debtor.

The company also argued that it should not be classified as a ‘non-banking institution’ under Section 45-I of the Reserve Bank of India Act, as it is not engaged in financing activities but serves merely as a facility agent for debenture holders.

Following a public announcement in 2019, a total of 364 claims amounting to Rs 5,115.22 crore were received. Of these, 348 claims worth Rs 414 crore were admitted, while others are still under verification.

The case continues to be closely watched as the outcome of the appeal will have significant implications for both Essel Finance and the overall liquidation process of Samrudhhi Realty.

The post SC Approves Auction of Samrudhhi Realty Assets to Recover Rs 5,000 Crore Debt. appeared first on .

Our Dubai event was a fantastic success, bringing together high-net-worth individuals (HNIs), prominent investors, and influential channel partners worldwide. It was an incredible gathering designed to create meaningful connections, share industry insights, and explore lucrative investment opportunities in the real estate sector.

A big shout-out to our amazing sponsors, awardees, and supporting partners! Your unwavering belief in REALTY QUARTER and generous support made this event a success. We had insightful panel discussions where industry leaders shared their knowledge of current trends and future opportunities in real estate.

The networking sessions were buzzing with energy as attendees engaged in meaningful conversations, building connections that will drive future collaborations and investments. And let’s not forget the awards ceremony, where we honored the outstanding achievements and contributions of key players in the real estate industry. It was truly a night of celebration and recognition.

To all our participants, thank you for your enthusiasm and active involvement. You enriched the event and highlighted the importance of collaboration and innovation in the real estate market. We are grateful for your presence and look forward to continuing our journey together.

Stay tuned for more updates and exclusive coverage of future events by REALTY QUARTER. Together, we are shaping the future of real estate investment and growth.

Thank you once again to everyone who contributed to the success of the 17th Edition of REALTY QUARTER’s Dubai HNIs, Investors, and Channel Partners Meet 2024. Your support and partnership are greatly appreciated.

The post REALTY QUARTER’s Dubai HNIs, Investors, and Channel Partners Meet 2024: A Grand Success! appeared first on .

The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, commonly referred to as RERA, was enacted to bring significant reforms to India’s real estate sector.

The primary aim of RERA is to promote greater transparency, citizen-centricity, accountability, and financial discipline, thus empowering home buyers and stimulating the economy.

The survey noted that all states and Union Territories have notified rules under RERA, except Nagaland, which is currently in the process of doing so. As of July 1, 2024, more than 1,30,186 real estate projects and 88,461 real estate agents have been registered under RERA.

“RERA provides for the establishment of a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism for the settlement of disputes. As of July 1, 2024, 32 states and Union Territories have established the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and 1,24,947 complaints have already been resolved,” the survey reported.

RERA mandates an ‘Agreement to Sale’ at the time of registration and requires two-thirds consent from allottees/homebuyers for any layout changes. The law also includes provisions for refunds, compensation, and penalties for all stakeholders in case of obligation breaches.

“Before RERA was enacted, there were numerous instances of builders failing to deliver flats or homes despite full payments from homebuyers. To address this issue, RERA mandates that 70 percent of funds collected from homebuyers for a project must be maintained in a separate bank account dedicated to project construction and land costs,” the survey explained.

RERA also requires developers and project promoters to disclose all necessary information about projects, including permissions obtained from authorities, date of launch, promised date of delivery, project specifications, and amenities.

Furthermore, the interests of homebuyers are protected as only projects (above 500 square meters and above eight apartments) registered with RERA can be launched, thus preventing any misrepresentation or false promises by developers, the survey stated.

The post RERA in States and UTs Dispose of Nearly 1.25 Lakh Consumer Complaints appeared first on .