RERA ....contd....>>>>>>>>

To Suplement:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_V6-JixZgE

<>  The component of  'legal cost', includable as part of 'cost of construction' ,as defined in RERA rules, is one of the points touched upon during the discussion. , . For what one knows,  there is no clarity -RERA or no RERA,  - even on the fundamental point as to what  the  'legal cost' is supposed to be /have been actually incurred by any promoter, hence entitled to be rightly passed on to buyers of a particular project . Going by common knowledge,  it may be assumed to represent mainly any cost actually incurred and paid for,  for say, scrutiny, vetting, preparing documents, etc.,  of two types:  
1. Title and other parent documents under/ in terms of which promoter  acquires land, for construction; and, 2. All such documents, in the form of agreement to sell and conveyance deed, and the like, promoter has to execute in favour of buyers of a given project.   

As may be recalled,  there was a time within living memory, when the 'lawyer' of promoter,  in-house or external, was required, - to accord with the rules of the game /industry, - by promoter to , for protecting his own interests, so also , in turn, provide some protection and comfort , by requiring the lawyer engaged for such purposes, to clearly indicate , on the face of anyone or more such document-; in particular agreements/ deeds executed by promoter and made available to buyers, that he has been responsible and vouches for the completeness...But, by and by, that practice, for reasons known  only to lawyers and /or promoters, NOT TO BUYERS,has become a thing of the past/faded into insignificance.

That explains instances of promoter using one-sided  documents- heavily weighted in favor of /  leaning towards promoters , - not buyers.  

If so, why then promoter is justified in charging and recovering from buyers for any 'documentation' or other related cost  incurred; more often than not,  despite not being commensurate to the benefits/advantage to buyers, hence lawfully disputable.

 <> RERA Rules - Statewise Analysis @ Moneylife

 Under the head- Maharashtra ,  said :

".....Also, it must be remembered that under the Central Act there is no mention of phase-wise completion of a project. It only refers to completion of the entire project."

The quoted assertive statement , it is noted, is not factually correct; see , among others,  -CHAPTER II, Explanation under Sec. 3 of the RERA (Central Act)
This, in fact, is remembered to be one of the points of objection, included in the Feedback Representation sent to the Home Ministry via e'mail, as long back as in    ; also, repeatedly shared through Posts on websites , personal Blogs ('swamilook'), etc.

ARTICLES On Websites- A Compendium >

Moneylife On RERA

CITIZENMATTERS on RERA -

Open to EDIT (or ADD) - ....