Last Updated on October 13, 2018 by Legalseva.net
Case 1:
Parties to the case- Yellowstone Industrial Plot Allottee’s Welfare Association v. Sukham Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Yellow Landmark Infocity)
A complaint was filed against the respondent alleging various irregularities on their behalf, i.e., incomplete development works, lack of supporting services, denial of timely possession, etc. Also, the project in question is not registered under the Act.
Issue- Is the complaint maintainable before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab?
Law-The complaints against the promoters in relation to projects that are not registered with the authority are not maintainable before it.
Order- It was held that there is no jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it has been filed in relation to project that is not registered with RERA, Punjab.
Also Read- RERA PUNJAB & PANCKULA HARYANA APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Case 2:
Parties to the case- Smt. Manit Malhotra v. M/s. AGI Infra (Jalandhar Heights)
A ‘Public Interest Complaint’ was filed by the complainant, Smt. Manit Malhotra, in which certain issues relating to the terms and conditions of the licences granted by Jalandhar Development Authority (JDA), and Partial Completion Certificate were mentioned.
Issue-Is the complaint maintainable before RERA, Punjab? What are the merits of the case?
Law- According to Section 36(1) of Punjab Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, “any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the authority for any violation under the Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, same as those provided to be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer, in form ‘M’ which shall be accompanied by a fee of one thousand in the form of a demand draft or a bankers cheque drawn on a scheduled bank in favour of the authority and payable at the branch of that bank at the station where the seat of the authority is situated.”
Order- The authority disposed off the complaint stating that the complainant does not fulfil the requirement of ‘Aggrieved Person’ as mentioned under Punjab Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 as the complainant is neither a buyer nor a representative of the buyers in the said projects. Further, the complainant also fails the prove the merits of the case.
Also Read- RERA PROVISIONS THAT A CONSUMER MUST KNOW!
Case 3:
Parties to the case- Rajiv Chopra v. Air Force Naval Housing Board, New Delhi
The Complaint was filed against the respondent alleging delay in completion of the dwelling unit allotted to the complainant. As relief, immediate possession of the unit, interest for the period of delay, and compensation for harassment has been claimed by the complainant. Further, the respondent contended that the project is not registered with the authority as they had already obtained a Partial Occupation Certificate and hence were exempt from the purview of the Act.
Issue- Is the complaint maintainable before the authority?
Law- Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016 makes it mandatory to the promoters to register their projects with the authority before advertising, marketing or selling any plot or apartment therein. As per Section 3(2)(b), where the promoter has received completion certificate for a real estate project prior to commencement of the Act, such projects will be exempted from the requirement of the registration.
Also, the complaint against the promoters in relation to the projects that are not registered with the authority, are not maintainable before it.
Order- All the rights, duties, obligations of the promoter under the Act arise only upon obtaining the registration under the Act. Since this project was not registered with the authority, the complaint related to it is not maintainable.
Also Read- NO OC WITHOUT CC – PUNJAB RERA
Case: 4
Parties to the case- 1. Silver City (Main) Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) versus
i. The Chief Administrator-cum-Competent Authority, GMADA ii. The Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Zirakpur
iii. Silver City Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Zirakpur
2. Silver City Constructions Ltd. Versus
i. Principal Secretary, Department of Housing Urban Development
ii. Municipal Council, Zirakpur
iii. Director, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab
iv. The Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority
v. Residents Welfare Association (Regd.), Silver City, Zirakpur
Since common points and facts were involved in each of the case, a single order had been disposed off for both.
Issue- Are the complaints maintainable before the authority?
Law- There is no jurisdiction to hear complaints in relation to projects which are not registered with the authority. This decision is binding in all benches, and on full authority itself.
Order- Since in both the situations the project was not registered with the authority, the complaints were rejected as not maintainable.
Also Read- RERA RETROACTIVE NOT RETROSPECTIVE
Case 5:
Parties to the case-Vrindavan Gardens Residents Welfare Society (Regd.) v. MukeshGoyal Colonizers and Builders (P.) Ltd.
The complainant alleged certain contraventions on the part of the respondent promoter and had sought relief accordingly. However, it appears from the record that the project is not a registered one.
Issue- Is the complaint maintainable before the authority?
Law-There is no jurisdiction to hear complaints in relation to projects which are not registered with the authority. This decision is binding in all benches, and on full authority itself.
Order- The complaint is the maintainable before the authority since the project is the registered under it.
Also Read- RERA SALIENT FEATURES
Case 6:
Parties to the case-Jagtar Singh v. Harjeet Singh and Sh. Talwinder Singh
The complaint had been filed alleging certain violations and contraventions against the promoters of Krishna Enclave M/s Gurkirat Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Also, the project Krishna Enclave was the registered at the time of filing the instant complaint.
Issue- Is the complaint maintainable before the authority?
Is the promoter guilty of violation of the Act?
Law- a. There is no jurisdiction to hear complaints in relation to projects which are not registered with the authority. This decision is binding in all benches, and on full authority itself.
b. Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016 makes it mandatory to the promoters to register their projects with the authority before advertising, marketing or selling any plot or apartment therein.
Order- Since the project was not registered with the authority, the complaint was held not maintainable and was accordingly rejected. Further, the Administrative branch of the authority was directed to initiate legal action against the promoter under the law as he failed to get his project registered under this Act.
Also Read- FAQS RERA PUNJAB HARYANA PANCHKULA
Case 7:
Parties to the case- Nikhil Juneja v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA)
The complaint had been filed alleging against violations and contraventions against PUDA. Also, the project in question in this case was not registered with RERA at the time of filing the complaint.
Issue- Is the complaint maintainable before the authority?
Is the promoter guilty of violation of the Act?
Law- a. There is no jurisdiction to hear complaints in relation to projects which are not registered with the authority. This decision is binding in all benches, and on full authority itself.
b. Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016 makes it mandatory to the promoters to register their projects with the authority before advertising, marketing or selling any plot or apartment therein.
Order- Since the project was not registered with the authority, the complaint was held not maintainable and was accordingly rejected. Further, the Administrative branch of the authority was directed to initiate legal action against the promoter under the law as he failed to get his project registered under this Act.
Also Read- DOES RERA COVER COMMERCIAL PROJECTS?
Case 8:
Parties to the case- Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Punjab v. Barnala Builders and Property Consultants
In view of persistent violation of the Act by various promoters in relation to advertisement of their projects, RERA, Punjab issued a circular on 21/12/2017 containing directions under S. 37 of the Act stating that the registration number should be mentioned in the top right hand corner of the published advertisement. A public notice highlighting this direction was also issued on 28/12/1017.
An advertisement was issued by the respondent on 05/01/2018 in relation to the project “Maya Garden Magnesia” in ‘The Tribune’ which was in violation with the direction issued by the authority.A notice for the same was also served to the respondent on 08/01/2018 in reply of which the respondent committed to rectify the mistake. However, the promoter again issued advertisements in the newspapers namely, ‘Hindustan Times’ and ‘DainikBhaskar’ on 12/01/2018 which were also in violation with the directions. Thus, another notice was issued to the respondent regarding the same.
Issue- Is the respondent guilty of violation of the Act?
Law- According to Section 11(2) of RERA Act, 2016, “the advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the authority, wherein all details of the project have been entered and include the registration number obtained from the Authority and such other matters incidental thereto.”
Order- Due to persistent violations by the promoter, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- had been imposed upon the promoter which may be deposited in the designated bank account operated by RERA, Punjab within 10 days of the receipt of the order.
Also Read- UNREGISTERED PROJECTS IN RERA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT PANCHKULA
Case 9:
Parties to the case-Jasbir Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers
Ms. Jasbir Kaur filed a complaint against the respondent alleging certain violations and contraventions. Also, according to the reports, the projevt of the respondent, ‘New Friends Enclave’ wasn’t registered with the authority at the time of filing the complaint.
Issue- Is the complaint maintainable before the authority?
Has there been any violation of the Act on the part of respondent?
Law-a. There is no jurisdiction to hear complaints in relation to projects which are not registered with the authority. This decision is binding in all benches, and on full authority itself.
b. Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016 makes it mandatory to the promoters to register their projects with the authority before advertising, marketing or selling any plot or apartment therein.
Order- Since the project was not registered with the authority, the complaint was held not maintainable and was accordingly rejected. Further, the Administrative branch of the authority was directed to initiate legal action against the promoter under the law as he failed to get his project registered under this Act.
Also Read- WHAT IF BUILDER DOESN’T COMPLY WITH RERA ORDERS?
Case 10:
Parties to the case- RERA, Punjab v. SushmaBuildtech Limited
In view of persistent violation of the Act by various promoters in relation to advertisement of their projects, RERA, Punjab issued a circular on 21/12/2017 containing directions under S. 37 of the Act stating that the registration number should be mentioned in the top right hand corner of the published advertisement. A public notice highlighting this direction was also issued on 28/12/1017.
The respondent promoter issued a composite advertisement for 9 projects in ‘The Tribune’ on 07/01/2018 in which the registration numbers only in relation to 7 projects were mentioned, that too not in the manner prescribed in the circular issued by the authority. A notice was accordingly issued to the respondent promoter to which the respondent replied assuring no further violation on its part. Earlier also, the respondent was served with two notices in relation of its projects namely Joynest, Mohali and Zirakpur which were advertised in violation of the law. However, that being the first violation by the promoter, no further action was taken.
Issue- Is the respondent guilty of violation of the Act?
Law- According to Section 11(2) of RERA Act, 2016, “the advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the authority, wherein all details of the project have been entered and include the registration number obtained from the Authority and such other matters incidental thereto.”
Order- Clearly, there had been default on the part of the promoter. Therefore, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon the respondent.
Also Read- HOW TO MAKE COMPLAINT UNDER RERA
This post is written by Bhumika Khandelwal of ILS College, Pune
For more info on RERA Punjab and Haryana Panchkula Authority related matters or seeking legal assistance, please Dial 99888-17966.
