APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2018
The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) delivered Appeal No. 1 of 2018 on 23 May 2018, examining a buyer's challenge to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's rejection of his request to require registration of the Savithanjali residential project. The supplied text ends during the Tribunal's reasoning and does not include the final decision on the appeal.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal No. 1 of 2018 before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) concerns the Savithanjali residential project at Kalavakkam village, Thiruporur Panchayat, Chenglepet Taluk, Kanchipuram district. The appellant, Y. Ravishankar, had booked Apartment No. 307 in Block C and challenged the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's rejection of his complaint.
The buyer asked the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority to direct Marg Properties Limited to register the project and to impose consequences for non-registration. He did not seek compensation or another individual remedy in this proceeding.
Main dispute
The central issue identified by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was whether the project was an ongoing project requiring registration when the promoter claimed that the structural work had been completed and had approached the Directorate of Town and Country Planning regarding its status.
Key points recorded in the proceedings include:
- The buyer alleged that construction was substantially delayed, approvals had expired or renewal had been rejected, and the project remained incomplete.
- The promoter admitted in its objection that structural work in Block A was complete, while three floors of slab work remained in Blocks B and C.
- The promoter argued that the project was outside the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's scope because the relevant structural work had been completed.
- The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had rejected the complaint on the grounds that the project was structurally complete and that the booked flat was not part of a registered project.
- The buyer argued that those grounds conflicted with the promoter's own statements about unfinished work.
Who may be affected
Appeal No. 1 of 2018 is directly relevant to the appellant, Marg Properties Limited and purchasers in the Savithanjali project. It may also interest buyers and promoters dealing with delayed or partly completed projects where registration depends on whether construction qualifies as ongoing.
The supplied extract records arguments and identifies the legal issue, but ends before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal states its final conclusion. It therefore cannot confirm whether the project was ultimately ordered to be registered or whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the Tribunal order Marg Properties Limited to register Savithanjali?
The supplied text does not show the final decision. It ends while the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal is considering whether the project qualified as an ongoing project requiring registration.
Why did the buyer file this appeal?
The buyer challenged the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's rejection of his complaint seeking registration of the Savithanjali project and consequences for non-registration.
Was the Savithanjali project complete according to the promoter?
The promoter stated that Block A's structural work was complete, but also stated that three floors of slab work remained in Blocks B and C. The parties disputed whether the project was nevertheless outside the registration requirement.
Did the buyer seek a refund or compensation in this appeal?
No. The buyer's stated request in this proceeding was for project registration and action for non-registration, not compensation or another individual remedy.
