E-Paper
Homebuyers’ woes: SC seeks details of action taken against deficient real estate firms
The SC has also sought to know the number of projects completed so far and the number of homebuyers who have been delivered actual physical possession of the dwelling units under these projects.
The Supreme Court (SC) has sought descriptive details of action taken against real estate development companies who were granted licences under Haryana government’s affordable housing scheme and were found deficient.
The SC has also sought to know the number of projects completed so far and the number of homebuyers who have been delivered actual physical possession of the dwelling units under these projects. The apex court has also asked the enforcement directorate (ED) to explain if it has registered enforcement case information reports (ECIRs) in cases similar to the one registered against real estate company, Mahira Buildtech.
The developer’s parent company and its sister concerns have been booked for cheating, forgery, contravention of provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act and conditions of real estate development licence. Homebuyers in Gurugram have been up in arms, holding periodic protests against the developer company for failing to deliver possession of houses and harming their investments.
A SC bench headed by Justice Surya Kant while hearing a petition filed by an aggrieved homebuyer on July 22 said that the before addressing the plight of the homebuyers in the projects launched by Mahira Buildtech, they deem it appropriate to direct the principal secretary, Haryana town and country planning department, to file an affidavit with full, descriptive answers to a number of queries.
The apex court has asked as to how many licences were granted for affordable housing scheme in Haryana, including the national capital region, during the last 10 years, the estimated cost of each project when they were launched, salient features of any tripartite or other agreement between the builder-cum-developer, homebuyers, and banks/financial institutions.
“Whether or not the original drawings of each project were approved by the town and country planning department? If so, how many times have the licences or the approved drawings been amended, modified, substituted, or replaced after such approval? What is the dedicated machinery set up by the state to monitor periodical progress of these projects, to test the quality of the construction, and to determine the cost ratio with the quality and total area of construction,” the SC said.
The top court has also sought to know what was the original allotment price when the affordable housing projects were launched, and the price charged from the homebuyers on completion of the projects. “Whether any bank guarantees were obtained from the promoter companies and whether their genuineness was ascertained before grant of licences? Whether those bank guarantees have been allowed to expire or whether their renewal was timely secured? If not, who are the officers in the department responsible for such lapse and whether any action has been taken against them,” the SC has asked.
The apex court has asked the ED to provide details of ECIRs registered by them in matters where FIRs regarding offences under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC have been registered at the instance of the homebuyers, state or financial institutions.
