An UPDATE (Apropos of Previous BLOGS, Posts on Linkedin, to reiterate)
TOP- Up (Jan 5, 2018)
https://www.google.co.in/search…
http://www.mondaq.com/…/Transfer+Of+Title+Of+Promoter+Under…
http://www.acquisory.com/…/The-Real-Estate-(Regulation-and-…
RERA Rules - Centre v State (S)
(Courtesy- Moneylife)
http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/rera-implementation-prob…
Visual (S) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1TwDLkKILg
Varying Defn. of "Ongoing Projects" for registration - All In A Mess ?!
In other words, briefly stated, the following two points of dispute could arise, even at the inception. That is, Whether, for meeting the requirement of registration, the project has to be taken as an 'ongoing project' or not.
Better stated :
1.Whether promoter has to act in accordance with what the Central RERA provides;or what the state enactment says,in case the respective conditions are at variance or materially incompatible /divergent?
2, Should the promoter (or authorized external certifier) be faced with genuine ambiguities or inadequacies in the Rules , posing difficulty in understanding and complying with the state enactment, that too on all fours, what is the possible expeditious recourse open, for an acceptable and satisfactory resolution of the stalemate!
Similar problems could arise even after the registration, in respect of compliance with some of the other procedural requirements gravely wanting clarity; for example, issuance of phase-wise OC / CC as envisaged,
The concept of OC/CC by itself, mandated as a sine quo non, - besides under the GST Code for levy of 'service tax' on 'deemed works contract'- is, even otherwise, if critically viewed, a shallow or hollow formality, a deceptive paper tiger -from a strict practical /utility viewpoint-, suffering from inherent infirmities. In other words, going by wisdom gathered in hind sight /past experience, the mandated requirement has proved to be nothing but a socio-economic /-psychological ploy of its kind, foisted upon, simply for the heck of it /bureaucratic fancy or fantacy, ultimately serving no real purpose of the buyers-consumers' benefit.
TOP- Up (Jan 5, 2018)
https://www.google.co.in/search…
http://www.mondaq.com/…/Transfer+Of+Title+Of+Promoter+Under…
http://www.acquisory.com/…/The-Real-Estate-(Regulation-and-…
RERA Rules - Centre v State (S)
(Courtesy- Moneylife)
http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/rera-implementation-prob…
Visual (S) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1TwDLkKILg
Varying Defn. of "Ongoing Projects" for registration - All In A Mess ?!
In other words, briefly stated, the following two points of dispute could arise, even at the inception. That is, Whether, for meeting the requirement of registration, the project has to be taken as an 'ongoing project' or not.
Better stated :
1.Whether promoter has to act in accordance with what the Central RERA provides;or what the state enactment says,in case the respective conditions are at variance or materially incompatible /divergent?
2, Should the promoter (or authorized external certifier) be faced with genuine ambiguities or inadequacies in the Rules , posing difficulty in understanding and complying with the state enactment, that too on all fours, what is the possible expeditious recourse open, for an acceptable and satisfactory resolution of the stalemate!
Similar problems could arise even after the registration, in respect of compliance with some of the other procedural requirements gravely wanting clarity; for example, issuance of phase-wise OC / CC as envisaged,
The concept of OC/CC by itself, mandated as a sine quo non, - besides under the GST Code for levy of 'service tax' on 'deemed works contract'- is, even otherwise, if critically viewed, a shallow or hollow formality, a deceptive paper tiger -from a strict practical /utility viewpoint-, suffering from inherent infirmities. In other words, going by wisdom gathered in hind sight /past experience, the mandated requirement has proved to be nothing but a socio-economic /-psychological ploy of its kind, foisted upon, simply for the heck of it /bureaucratic fancy or fantacy, ultimately serving no real purpose of the buyers-consumers' benefit.
KEY Note: Apart from the
imponderables under discussion, -with reference to the unanswer-ed (or -able) questions on the Rules governing 'ongoing project'- if
not mistaken, likewise, Not- so Frequently- Asked - Questions, but begging for answers / resolution, concern the
significantly varying formats for 'Agreement to Sell' prescribed by States, in
comparison to the Model prescribed by the Centre.
Ref. “Mohan and the advocates on the panel highlighted the following aspects:….”
Ref. “Mohan and the advocates on the panel highlighted the following aspects:….”
EXtracts
(selectively, with own comments supplied- inset):
1. "A promoter cannot accept more
than 10% of the sale value from a buyer unless a sale agreement is registered, but a
sale agreement is not really required under the RERA Act. Other points
of conflict between RERA and existing Acts may come up, which can only be resolved
in time. A proposal to revise the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act in light of
RERA is also being considered." (FONT supplied)
- ¨ RERA is a Regulatory Act, not a complete code by itself. Guess that the reference is to ‘agreement to sell’, not ‘conveyance deed’. If not mistaken, the Central so also the States’ RERA Rules do prescribe the standard format for ‘Agreement to Sell’ – though not for sale (conveyance) deed, requiring to be executed.
- If heard right (open to correction), the authority in his televised interview, made a mention of repealing MOFA under contemplation (not of revising MAOA); and, have in place, a new legislation, to take care of the aspect of 'title' to buyer.
Even
otherwise, in such matters of vital - not just procedural but of substantive-
nature, the provisions of the special state (S) enactment (s) governing
flats/apartments should apply and, with no option open, be complied with.
To reiterate
own viewpoints stressed often before, and re-share, what MAHA had done in repealing
the MOFA is a misconceived step. For, in respect of all those areas not specifically
covered in RERA, the provisions of both MOFA and MAOA might have to be necessarily
be referred, relied upon, and applied.
2. "The confusion between Completion
Certificate and Occupancy Certificate was clarified. When a construction is
completed, a Completion Certificate will be issued. An Occupancy Certificate
will be issued after utilities (water, power, sewage lines) are provided. The
Act applies to ongoing projects only; projects that have obtained Completion Certificates
before RERA was implemented, are exempt."
- ¨ No clue as to who or when has clarified so,and in what context ! Anyway, the purport or import thereof is far from being understood readily. So far as one is aware, the two terms have been in use, in certain limited quarters, but interchangeably, perhaps unwittingly.
- Be that as it may, formal 'conveyance’ and registration of (Sale) of flat or apartment to buyer(s) , so also the final conveyance to CHS or ‘Owners’ Association’ of the entire property, including land and building(s), as envisaged and required by the above referred state enactments, for obvious reasons, could not conceivably be at any point in time earlier than the development has been completed , in all respects, so as to be given possession, and actual occupation .
3. "RERA will not apply to projects
that are already 60% registered and construction is complete. Some argued that
this 60% rule is diluting the Act. There is no relief for the remaining 40% of
buyers whose flats have not been registered and the builder is creating
trouble."
- The referred 60% rule, it appears, - or corresponding rule of any other State, - is highly debatable, on more than one ground; not only on the ground of it having diluted the provision in the Central rule. To hint at: Arbitrariness in doing so, with no rhyme or reason, and being contrary to the Central rule, Problems (inherent) in implementation, so on.
(OPEN /Invite Experts in field practice, with a direct exposure and experience, to eminently Edit , for enlightenment, in better light, for the common good. For doing so, suggest to look up /cross refer the analytical study of MOFA and MAOA earnestly attempted and the personal viewpoints faithfully shared and available in public domain - See the Previous Blogs, websites, etc.; And a published Article here- LAW vs CASE LAW ON FLATS 2014 (3) Kar. L.J. pg. 1 to 25 > 48 )
MORE Articles (Related - displayed on Lci and elsewhere) >
Taxguru
https://taxguru.in/income-tax/law-case-law-flats.html
(< MORE - refer INSIDE)
POSTS on Linkedin
To Supplement (Old Blogs- recent)
ADD-on : Here is a video interview , just one in a series of those, @https://lnkd.in/fa8wEmt;which makes for an interesting exposition by a topmost state RERA authority, in Maharashtra, of what is the expectation by the government under the law, of the 'promoters' of ongoing projects, with regard to compliance with the mandates of registration, etc. As seems to have been admitted, there are 'grey areas', not unlikely to pose challenges, if and when met with. If so, the positive indication seems to be clearly that the implementation and strict enforcement of the RERA - central or of the state, in its present form/structure- , more so in favor of the consumer- buyer , especially in all cases, within the rigid time frame for completion /possession as envisaged by the RERA , by itself, might pose peculiar problems, not possible to be resolved as expected, expeditiously.. This , so also the many other aspects (such as, OC x CC* , MOFA, etc.,) briefly touched upon, in one's firm conviction, call for further insightful deliberation, and prudent /incisive consideration, by one and all ,-not barring the law experts/pundits, at large,- having common but serious concerns, about the eventual success at least in the most crucial of the aspects, galore.
On the explanation as to why "OC' , not "CC" was prescribed as the sine qua non for registration, its validity calls for in-depth deliberation /review. For this purpose, - apart from the viewpoints shared and canvased in the above referred published material, - the special definitions in the RERA, of the terms of relevance, - "Completion Certificate" and "Occupancy Certificate", so also of "Development works", "External / "Internal -development works", ought to be taken a conscious note of. Prima facie, the said definitions suffer from certain deficiencies, on account of overlapping in certain respects. Nonetheless, in one's conviction, based on a conjoint / harmoniousness reading, and incisive understanding, of the underlying scheme of things, in toto, there appears to be no rhyme or reason, or sound logic, for MAHA or any other state, in excluding, in violation of /deviation from the Centre's RERA Rules, from the purview of registration of all such other ongoing projects having no "CC".
MORE Articles (Related - displayed on Lci and elsewhere) >
Taxguru
https://taxguru.in/income-tax/law-case-law-flats.html
(< MORE - refer INSIDE)
POSTS on Linkedin
To Supplement (Old Blogs- recent)
ADD-on : Here is a video interview , just one in a series of those, @https://lnkd.in/fa8wEmt;which makes for an interesting exposition by a topmost state RERA authority, in Maharashtra, of what is the expectation by the government under the law, of the 'promoters' of ongoing projects, with regard to compliance with the mandates of registration, etc. As seems to have been admitted, there are 'grey areas', not unlikely to pose challenges, if and when met with. If so, the positive indication seems to be clearly that the implementation and strict enforcement of the RERA - central or of the state, in its present form/structure- , more so in favor of the consumer- buyer , especially in all cases, within the rigid time frame for completion /possession as envisaged by the RERA , by itself, might pose peculiar problems, not possible to be resolved as expected, expeditiously.. This , so also the many other aspects (such as, OC x CC* , MOFA, etc.,) briefly touched upon, in one's firm conviction, call for further insightful deliberation, and prudent /incisive consideration, by one and all ,-not barring the law experts/pundits, at large,- having common but serious concerns, about the eventual success at least in the most crucial of the aspects, galore.
On the explanation as to why "OC' , not "CC" was prescribed as the sine qua non for registration, its validity calls for in-depth deliberation /review. For this purpose, - apart from the viewpoints shared and canvased in the above referred published material, - the special definitions in the RERA, of the terms of relevance, - "Completion Certificate" and "Occupancy Certificate", so also of "Development works", "External / "Internal -development works", ought to be taken a conscious note of. Prima facie, the said definitions suffer from certain deficiencies, on account of overlapping in certain respects. Nonetheless, in one's conviction, based on a conjoint / harmoniousness reading, and incisive understanding, of the underlying scheme of things, in toto, there appears to be no rhyme or reason, or sound logic, for MAHA or any other state, in excluding, in violation of /deviation from the Centre's RERA Rules, from the purview of registration of all such other ongoing projects having no "CC".
Thanks for your notes on my blog article. My original blog article appeared on https://medium.com/@arvindpdmn/rera-and-its-grey-areas-c2a7d0221197 where I mentioned that "but the latter is not really a requirement under the Registration Act." This was wrongly edited by CitizenMatters as "but a sale agreement is not really required under the RERA Act." Hence, the confusion on that point.
ReplyDeleteYour writings on this blog is definitely useful for the public. Do keep writing more such articles.
Thanks Mr. Arvind for the prompt counter (- comment), selectively on just one point of my concern. Just to make myself more than clear,the principal purpose of my thus- far- persistent efforts /endeavors in providing Feedbacks- Inputs, and keep doing so, on the subject was to underscore the long-crying need for the concerned law experts, in field practice,- more than the 'public' you refer- mostly not competent but gullible- to firstly get a good and intimate knowledge of the RERA and other intricately/ inter- connected special state laws , indisputably applicable, hence not to be bypassed or over-sighted, impudently or otherwise.So much so,they are of useful help and positive guidance to the consulting public, to the best of expertise/ competence, as expected of.
ReplyDeleteRIDER For an appreciation , in proper light, of the most-wanting imperative need, nay the utmost necessity, for the experts-consultants, in practice, to suitably acquaint, and equip, selves,about the intricacies of the RERA and other closely inter-twined laws, suggest to look for and find helpful clues in the host of personal Blogs, open for viewing. In particular,may look up the Articles published in KLJ , MLJ Journals/displayed on the Lci and other professional websites (e.g TAXGURU). In short, the ball is now in the court of the legal fraternity / expert circles; so as to decide and make the next appropriate move forward.
ReplyDeleteFor ATTN of whomsoever it concerns;
ReplyDeleteCC of my just posted comment @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1TwDLkKILg
Q
venkat swami
1 second ago
ADMN.
WHO AND WHY my ONLY posted comment has been moved out? Done so, with the sole, wholesome intent of creating an awareness /awakening with regard to certain aspects, - considered crucial , hence- requiring to be made a conscious note of and taken on /pursued, to the 'finish' , in the larger public interests, by one and all, including the concerned authorities.
UQ
For MORE feed: http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2017/09/rera-contd.html
ReplyDelete