TOWERS, TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND UNCERTAINTY
TOWER BUILDINGS IN MUMBAI BLISS OR BANE Mumbai was a peaceful place, with sophisticated and cool roads. Tall towers are now new skylines in Mumbai. Jam-packed traffic, roads on ventilators, metro, and coastal roads adorn the site of Mumbai city. Redevelopment of the old building is a booming business now. They are given TDR and additional FSI. But what if this tower falls or collapses? What if the SRA building collapsed and became unsafe? Is there any provision? How such towers will be constructed? What are the rights of flatholders and member’s? Will Insurance save the flat holders’ future? Before answering so many questions let us see the inter-alia relevant provisions of newly framed Development Control Rules for Greater Mumbai. Provisions relating to underdevelopment Control and Promotion Regulation 2034 [ DCPR 2034]. 33(6) Reconstruction of buildings destroyed by fire, or which have collapsed, or which have been demolished under lawful order Reconstruction of buildings that existed on or after 10th June 1977 and have ceased to exist for reasons cited above, shall be allowed to be reconstructed with FSI as per the Regulation No 30(C). Provided that if the area covered under a staircase/lift has not been claimed free of FSI as per the then prevailing Regulation as per the occupation plan, the area covered under staircases/lifts shall be considered while arriving at protected BUA in such cases the premium for entire staircase lift area in the proposed building as per these Regulations shall be recovered. This FSI will be subject to the following conditions: Reconstruction of the new building on the plot should conform to provisions of DP and these Regulations. Reconstruction will be subject to an agreement executed by at least 70 percent of the landlords and occupants each in the original building, within the meaning of the Mumbai Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and such the agreement shall make a provision for accommodation and re-accommodate the said landlord/all occupants in the new building on agreed terms and a certificate from a practicing advocate having a minimum of 10 years’ experience, is submitted confirming that on the date of application, reconstruction, agreements are executed by at least 70% of the landlords and occupants each in the original building with the developer/owner. The Advocate shall also certify that the agreements with occupants are valid and subsisting on the date of application. The Carpet area of residential/non-residential premises may be altered with the consent of occupants. Reconstruction shall be disallowed on set-back areas or areas required for road-widening and such areas shall be handed over to the Corporation. These provisions shall not apply to buildings wholly occupied by warehouses and godowns. If the building is reconstructed with existing FSI/BUA prior to its collapse/demolition, then the requirements of front & marginal open spaces shall be as per the Regulation No.41(5) of these Regulations. Provisions of R.No.41(5) is as under: Provisions in open spaces for plots in Reconstruction/Redevelopment Schemes under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Redevelopment Scheme of municipal tenanted properties; in case of DCR 3(5),33(6),33(7),33(7)(A),33(7)(B),33(9),33(9)(A),33(9)(B),33(10), 33(10)(A),33(11),33(15)and 33(20)(A): The following […]
Read more
CAN A COPARCENER/CO-OWNER SELL HIS/HER SHARE IN A JOINTLY OWNED PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY? RIGHT OF PREEMPTION AGRICULTURE LAND VS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
Let us first see the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Section 22 of The Hindu Succession Act 1956 Section 22 of the Act is as under:- “22. Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases – (1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. (2) The consideration for which any interest in the property of the deceased may be transferred under this section shall, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, be determined by the court on application being made to it in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not willing to acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application. (3) If there are two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule proposing to acquire any interest under this section, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred. Explanation.- In this section, “court” means the court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situate or the business is carried on, and includes any other court which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” OBITER Smt. Laxmi Debi v. Surendra Kumar Panda and Others by the High Court of Orissa. In this case the submission that Section 22 of the Act would not cover succession in respect of agricultural lands was rejected.It was observed and held that “It is clear that the Parliament had omitted the phrase “save as regards agricultural land” from item No. 5 of the Concurrent List in order to have a uniform personal law for Hindus throughout India, and accordingly, it necessitated the enlargement of Entry No. 5. We have no doubt, therefore, that in view of the change in law, the Act will apply to agricultural lands also, and the decision in AIR 1941 FC 72 (K) would no longer hold good.” The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Smt. Prema Devi vs. Joint Director of Consolidation (Headquarter) at Gorakhpur Camp and Ors. held:- In List 2, Entry No. 18 is as follows:– “Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.” This entry which is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Legislature is in the widest term. All laws relating to land and land tenures are therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Legislature. Even personal law can become applicable to land tenures […]
Read more
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF OWELTY ? WHEN DO THE COURTS APPLY IT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNED PROPERTY?
When is a property jointly owned and cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds what remedy is available to parties? In the case of a property that is jointly held by the family, or which may be inherited by the family which consists of more than one sibling of the deceased how to partition the property? One alternative is division by metes and bounds. This can be done by parties under a registered agreement by executing a Deed of Partition or if there is more than one property then it can be done by executing a Deed of Family Arrangement and followed by executing a Deed of Conveyance or the document which is needed in the matter applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It could be of the nature of a Deed of Release, Deed of Relinquishment, Deed of Gift, or Deed of Exchange as the case may be. The same should be done by way of a registered deed. Now when in the following events : for example, a bungalow is jointly owned by the respective families of four brothers who passed away. The legal heirs of three brothers want to sell their undivided share in the property. But one branch of the deceased brother is objecting to the sale; another example, a bungalow cannot be divided or partitioned by metes and bounds because the legal heirs are more, and the area is less; the objecting party does not reside in the said inherited property; In such a case land is locked so even the generation of income from the same. What to do in such a case? In such cases, courts apply the principle of Owelty: what it is? OWELTY : In regard to partitions, the ground upon which the jurisdiction of courts of equity, was maintainable as it constituted a part of its appropriate and peculiar remedial justice. It is, that courts of equity were not restrained, as, courts of law were, to a mere, partition or allotment of the lands and ‘other real estate between the parties according to their respective interests in the same, and having regard to the true value thereof; but courts of equity might, with a view to the more-, convenient and perfect, partition or allotment of the premises, decree a pecuniary compensation to one of the parties for owelty or, equality of partition, so as to prevent an injustice or avoidable inequality.” ‘Lawrence -on Equity Jurisprudenoe (1929), Vol. I pp. 1227, 1228, s. 1147, also contains the following passage:- , The ordinary method of partition is to decree a physical severance of the separate interests, no sale being authorised unless a fair, partition is otherwise impossible, or at least prejudicial. There was no power of judicial sale at common law. The Court ordering physical partition may make its decree effective by compelling mutual conveyances by the parties of their respective interests. Owelty of partition may be awarded to equalize the shares of the parties and may be decreed to be a lien on the excessive allotment. Though only when necessary to a fair partition, and it should be […]
Read more
DOES THE INVESTOR HAVE A REMEDY AGAINST ERRING BUILDERS UNDER REAL ESTATE AND REGULATION ACT ,2016 ( RERA) ?
To answer this query let us understand the provisions of RERA,2016 2(d) “allottee” in relation to a real estate project means the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, as ,he case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, is given on rent. FILING OF COMPLAINTS WITH THE AUTHORITY OR THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner, and fees for filing a complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be specified by regulations. The first of such complaint was filed before Maharashtra RERA authority in COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000000789 Mahesh Parian vs Monarch Solitaire Facts: The Complainant has invested some amount in the residential Project known as ‘monarch Solitaire’ and reserved four apartments in the said Project in 2014. The said project is registered under MahaRERA registration No. P51700012008. The Complainant stated that after reservation of four apartments, Respondent neither gave his invested money back with interest nor is giving the possession of the apartments earmarked for him. Therefore, he prayed that MahaRERA pass an appropriate order for recovery of the principal amount with interest. Observation: documents entered into between parties Tribunal observed that the Complainant and Respondent have signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ on 12s March 2014 from which it is seen that the Complainant is an investor in the said Project and not an allottee. The ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ mentions that when the complainant sells his apartments in the market then the profit from such a sale will be shared between the complainant and respondent in the ratio of 70:3O”. It means that the Complainant has the status of a ‘Co-promoter’ of the Project, as clarified in MahaRERA circular. NOTE: As per records of Maha-RERA this matter was subsequently withdrawn before Appellate Authority. Can draw a hypothesis that it was settled. Next came was M/s. Srushti Sangam Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Sarvapriya Leasing (P) Ltd. APPEAL NO. 000600000001 0557 Facts: The Promoter was developing a project namely Maulick Enclave at Chembur, Mumbai. lt is a redevelopment project consisting of residential premises and shops and offices. promoter and owner of the land had executed registered agreements of redevelopment in the year 2003. As the project was incomplete on 11 May 2017 i.e. on the day of application of RERA Act 2016. promoter has registered a project with [MahaRERA and it bears registration No. P518000J2986.] The investor cum allottee had paid a total sum of Rs.4,53,71,1001 […]
Read more