Check for safety and re­li­a­bil­ity

MMovingi iin­tot a pro­jec­tjt with­outitht a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate is fraught with risks as builders could have com­pro­mised on its safety fea­tures

HT Estates - - FRONT PAGE - Van­dana Ram­nani

Af­ter a Twit­ter cam­paign forced govern­ments and de­vel­op­ment au­thor­i­ties to fi­nally get se­ri­ous about com­plaints from Noida’s Am­ra­pali Sap­phire res­i­dents, ex­perts have come up with so­lu­tions to end their woes. In­stead of mak­ing buy­ers wait for pos­ses­sion of their units, au­thor­i­ties should mort­gage a de­vel­oper’s un­sold stock to re­cover money for land al­lot­ment and is­sue a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate on time.

If a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate can­not be handed over to the de­vel­oper be­cause of non­pay­ment of dues, the au­thor­ity should take over the un­sold hous­ing units in that project and is­sue a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate to al­low buy­ers to move in. “His un­sold stock can be es­crowed for land re­pay­ment,” says Ge­tam­ber Anand of Con­fed­er­a­tion of Real Es­tate Devel­op­ers As­so­ci­a­tions of In­dia (Credai). Get­ting a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate should be pri­ori­tised at any cost.

Buy­ers who move into res­i­den­tial com­plexes that do not have a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate should not do so as it is il­le­gal, warn ex­perts.

Un­der the UP Ur­ban Plan­ning and De­vel­op­ment Act 1973, no prop­erty can be used for habi­ta­tion un­less an oc­cu­pa­tion cer­tifi­cate or a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate is given by the sanc­tion­ing au­thor­ity. This is re­it­er­ated in the UP Apart­ment Act 2010, says SK Pal, a Supreme Court lawyer.

In Noida, where prop­er­ties are on lease­hold, builders some­times per­mit peo­ple to move in for ren­o­va­tion (fit-outs) af­ter they sign an af­fi­davit stat­ing that they would take pos­ses­sion of the flat only for fit-out pur­pose and in case of even­tu­al­ity, the builder will not be re­spon­si­ble for their safety. The buyer, al­ready un­der pres­sure to pay for his cur­rent rental ac­com­mo­da­tion and EMIs for the new apart­ment, has no op­tion but to sign the doc­u­ment and move into the new com­plex, Pal says.

Al­low­ing buy­ers to move into a project with­out a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate also vi­o­lates Ar­ti­cle 21, which is about a per­son’s right to life. In case of a fire, any build­ing with­out a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate would pose a grave risk to its res­i­dents. Such a struc­ture is un­likely to have safety and other fea­tures re­quired f or a com­ple­tion cer­tifi­cate.

Of late, hun­dreds of homebu ye r s h ave c a m p a i g n e d through so­cial me­dia to draw the at­ten­tion of ad­min­is­tra­tors and all stake­hold­ers to their prob­lems. “The fact is that the Cen­tral govern­ment has of­fered a so­lu­tion to states in the form of a real es­tate reg­u­la­tor but no state has taken ac­tion in that di­rec­tion so far,” says Pal.

About 700 home­buy­ers in a com­plex in Noida which lacked fire­fight­ing sys­tems, el­e­va­tors and had lifts and ill-main­tained park­ing lots, had been wait­ing to get their apart­ments reg­is­tered but could not do so be­cause the builder had not paid land dues to the au­thor­ity. They fi­nally took to Twit­ter to en­sure their grievances were heard by the ad­min­is­tra­tion di­rectly.

The han­dle #Am­ra­pal­iMis­use Dhoni re­ceived over 35 lakh im­pres­sions and forced Am­ra­pali’s brand am­bas­sador, crick­eter MS Dhoni, to quit. The res­i­dents then tagged UP chief min­is­ter Akhilesh Ya­dav, who later di­rected the Noida Au­thor­ity to re­solve the oc­cu­pa­tion cer­tifi­cate is­sue. A com­mit­tee headed by the ad­di­tional chief ex­ec­u­tive of­fi­cer (ACEO) has since been set up to look into the mat­ter.

“We booked a hous­ing unit in this Noida project in 2009 and pos­ses­sion was due in 2012 but the dead­line was ex­tended. By 2013 fam­i­lies had started mov­ing in. To­day


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.