Appeal No. 5 of 2018, M/s. Adinath Srinivasa Foundations LLP v. The Secretary, Serene Kshetra Owners Association
The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamilnadu, Puduchery, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) delivered its order in Appeal No. 5 of 2018 on 11 January 2019, concerning whether completed and incomplete portions of the Serene Kshetra housing development required registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. M/s. Adinath Srinivasa Foundations LLP appealed against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority order dated 24 September 2018, which concluded that the entire project had to be registered. The supplied text ends during the appellant's admission arguments and does not include the Tribunal's final decision.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 5 of 2018 before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamilnadu, Puduchery, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) concerns the Serene Kshetra residential development in Kancheepuram District. The dispute is between developer M/s. Adinath Srinivasa Foundations LLP and the Secretary of the Serene Kshetra Owners Association.
The development covered two contiguous sites in Nathampettai Village and Valluvapakkam Village. Separate approvals had been obtained from the Kanchipuram Local Planning Authority and the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Chengalpattu.
Why the owners complained
The Serene Kshetra owners argued that portions of the development had been wrongly listed by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning as structurally completed and therefore excluded from the definition of an ongoing project. They asked for the exemption to be rejected and for the project to be registered with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Their main claims were:
- Serene Kshetra was presented in agreements, allotment letters and plans as one integrated residential project for senior citizens.
- Common amenities and infrastructure were shared across the development.
- Only some houses and other buildings had been constructed, although wider planning permission had been granted.
- The development should not be divided into completed and incomplete portions merely for registration purposes.
Developer's position
M/s. Adinath Srinivasa Foundations LLP argued that the development contained two distinct schemes, a villa development on laid out plots and an apartment group housing development. It said structurally completed portions qualified for exemption, while incomplete portions had already been separately registered with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The inspection material recorded completed, under-construction and not-yet-started buildings. It also recorded unfinished work relating to the clubhouse and staff housing.
Decision under appeal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority found that it could examine whether the structural completion exemption had been correctly used. It also found that a promoter could not divide a project into phases contrary to its original intended form, or further divide phases into exempt completed portions and registered ongoing portions. The Authority therefore concluded that the entire project had to be registered.
M/s. Adinath Srinivasa Foundations LLP appealed against that conclusion. The supplied extract does not state whether the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld, changed or set aside the Authority's decision.
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
Does the document confirm that the entire Serene Kshetra project must be registered?
It confirms that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority concluded that the entire project had to be registered. The supplied text does not include the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's final ruling on that conclusion.
Were any parts of Serene Kshetra already registered with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority?
Yes. The source records Registration No. 88 dated 28 September 2017 for the Valluvapakkam Village portion and Registration No. 177 dated 13 December 2017 for the Nathampettai Village portion, relating to remaining incomplete construction.
Why did the developer say some buildings did not require registration?
M/s. Adinath Srinivasa Foundations LLP said those buildings were structurally completed and had been included in the exempt list. It argued that only the incomplete portions required registration.
Does the supplied document show who won the appeal?
No. The supplied text ends while recording the developer's arguments at admission and does not provide the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's final determination.
