Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Common Order, Appeal Nos. 51 to 55 and 56 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued the Common Order in Appeal Nos. 51 to 55 and 56 of 2021 on 2 February 2022 concerning a 16 apartment project in Ponmeni Village, Madurai. The order combines appeals by five home buyers and the promoter, M/s. Govis Infra Private Limited, arising from disputes over construction, execution of undivided land shares and the responsibilities of the promoter and land owners.
What the case concerns
The Common Order in Appeal Nos. 51 to 55 and 56 of 2021 concerns a 16 apartment development at Door No. 1, Subramaniam Pillai Street, Soma Sundaram Colony, Ponmeni Village, Madurai. Five home buyers appealed against M/s. Govis Infra Private Limited and the land owners. M/s. Govis Infra Private Limited also filed a separate appeal against the land owners.
The land owners and builder entered into a joint venture agreement on 23 September 2013. Six apartments were allotted to the land owners and ten to the builder. The agreed construction period was 15 months from approval of the building plan, subject to force majeure.
Dispute between the parties
The home buyers stated that they had paid almost the entire sale consideration, but the land owners had failed to execute sale deeds for their undivided land shares since 2016. They argued that the Regulatory Authority had not adequately protected their interests.
M/s. Govis Infra Private Limited stated that financial distress caused delay. It claimed that most work on the six apartments allotted to the land owners had been completed, while the land owners had executed an undivided share for only one purchaser.
The land owners stated that the builder failed to complete construction and hand over their apartments within the agreed period. They said that they cancelled the joint venture agreement and power of attorney after the builder failed to complete the project even after further assurances.
Questions considered by the Tribunal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal identified these main questions:
- Whether the land owners were also promoters of the project.
- Whether the land owners were entitled to cancel the joint venture agreement.
- Whether the builder had to complete the portions allotted to the land owners and builder simultaneously within the agreed period.
- Whether the appeals should be allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the project was registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It began examining whether both the land owners and builder had promoter responsibilities toward home buyers, including joint liability where one party develops apartments and another sells them.
Status of the supplied text
The supplied extract ends during the Tribunal's analysis of whether the land owners were promoters. It does not include the final findings, directions or result of the appeals.
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
Which property is covered by these appeals?
The appeals concern a 16 apartment project at Door No. 1, Subramaniam Pillai Street, Soma Sundaram Colony, Ponmeni Village, Madurai Corporation, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.
Why did the home buyers appeal?
The home buyers said they had paid almost the entire sale consideration but the land owners had not executed sale deeds for their undivided land shares. They also argued that the Regulatory Authority had failed to protect their interests adequately.
Why did the land owners refuse to execute the undivided shares?
The land owners said the builder had not completed and handed over the apartments allotted to them within the agreed time. They stated that they cancelled the joint venture agreement and power of attorney after continued delay.
Does the supplied text reveal who won the appeals?
No. The supplied extract ends while the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was considering whether the land owners were promoters, and it does not contain the final decision or directions.
