Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
COMMON ORDER (2019)
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued the Common Order in Appeal Nos. 53, 54 and 56 of 2019 on 31 October 2019. It considers three apartment buyers’ challenges to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision dated 21 May 2019, which treated the Army Welfare Housing Organization project at Thazambur as structurally completed and exempt from registration. The supplied text ends during the Tribunal’s analysis and does not include its final decision on the appeals.
What the appeals concern
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered appeals filed by Colonel C. M. Unnithan, Captain Nagarajan Vasudeva Rao and Commander N. Koteeswar against the Army Welfare Housing Organization. The appeals were filed under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The buyers asked the Tribunal to set aside the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision dated 21 May 2019 in their respective complaints and direct registration of the project with the regulatory authority.
Project and buyer details
The dispute concerns the Dinesh Vihar housing project at Thazambur DLF Link Road, Thazambur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The Army Welfare Housing Organization described itself as a registered society operating on a no profit and no loss basis for service and retired personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Key facts recorded include:
- Construction began on 26 May 2012, with probable completion stated as December 2015.
- The project comprised six residential towers and related amenities.
- The three appellants booked apartments in November 2012 and stated that they had paid about 95 per cent of their apartment costs, followed by further amounts requested in 2018.
- The buyers alleged that facilities including the swimming pool, club house, sewage treatment plants, gymnasium and podium remained incomplete.
Registration dispute
The buyers relied on a letter dated 13 November 2017 from the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, who was also Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority. That letter treated the development as an ongoing project and directed registration within 15 days.
The Army Welfare Housing Organization maintained that structural work had been completed before the regulatory notification, while some amenities remained unfinished. It also stated that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority accepted its delayed documents on 28 August 2018.
On 21 May 2019, the regulatory authority closed the buyers’ complaints after finding that the project was structurally completed under Rule 2(h)(iii) and therefore exempt from registration. The buyers argued that they received no notice or personal hearing and that the earlier registration direction was not addressed. The supplied extract does not contain the Tribunal’s final ruling on these arguments.
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 Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal finally require the Dinesh Vihar project to register?
The supplied text does not show the final result. It ends while the Tribunal is considering whether the buyers were denied an opportunity to present their case.
Why did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority exempt the project from registration?
The authority’s decision dated 21 May 2019 stated that the project had been structurally completed under Rule 2(h)(iii) and was therefore exempt from registration.
What did the apartment buyers argue in the appeals?
They argued that the project remained incomplete, that an earlier letter dated 13 November 2017 had directed registration, and that the regulatory authority closed their complaints without giving them a personal hearing.
What was the Army Welfare Housing Organization’s response?
The organization said the structural work had been completed before the regulatory notification, delays resulted from natural calamities and other circumstances, and only ancillary amenities remained. It also relied on an arbitration arrangement in the allotment terms.
