Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Common Order in Appeal Nos. 34 and 43 of 2022
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued the Common Order in Appeal Nos. 34 and 43 of 2022 on 27 September 2023, considering cross appeals against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's direction dated 10 June 2022 to register the AAVISA project as an ongoing project. The allottee sought findings against additional companies and directors, while IVR Hotels and Resorts Private Limited challenged the registration direction. The supplied text does not include the Tribunal's final decision on either appeal.
What the appeals concern
Appeal Nos. 34 and 43 of 2022 arise from a complaint filed by allottee Vandana Parvez against IVR Hotels and Resorts Private Limited and other respondents. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had found on 10 June 2022 that AAVISA was an ongoing project and directed IVR Hotels and Resorts Private Limited to register it.
The appeals were filed under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reserved the matter on 13 September 2023 and delivered its Common Order on 27 September 2023.
Project and allottee background
The AAVISA development was described as covering approximately 700 acres and including a golf course, golf club, hotel, residential, commercial and retail development. A 52 acre residential block called SAMTEN was planned with nearly 239 luxury and premium villas.
The allottee entered into an agreement for sale on 9 December 2011 for Plot No. 262, measuring 1,980 square feet, and entered into a construction agreement on the same date. The plot was transferred through a registered sale deed dated 4 January 2012.
The allottee claimed that AAVISA remained ongoing because promised amenities had not been provided. An earlier dismissal of her complaint was set aside by the Tribunal on 27 September 2021, and the complaint was returned to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority for a fresh decision.
Competing positions
The allottee's appeal sought findings that respondents other than IVR Hotels and Resorts Private Limited were also promoters and should participate in registering the project. She also challenged observations describing certain Kotak entities only as investors and sought examination of alleged offences and litigation costs.
IVR Hotels and Resorts Private Limited argued that AAVISA was a layout project whose roads and open spaces had been gifted to the local authority on 31 August 2010. It relied on Rule 2(h)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, to argue that the project was excluded from the definition of an ongoing project.
The Kotak entities stated that they were investors, not promoters. They claimed to have invested Rs.250 crores and acquired a 28.61 percent stake under a joint venture agreement dated 5 December 2007.
Why it matters
Appeal Nos. 34 and 43 of 2022 concern whether AAVISA required registration and which entities could be treated as promoters. The supplied text stops before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's final conclusions, so it does not establish whether the registration direction was upheld, changed or set aside.
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 Regulatory Authority direct AAVISA to be registered?
Yes. On 10 June 2022, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority found that AAVISA was an ongoing project and directed IVR Hotels and Resorts Private Limited to register it.
Why did IVR Hotels and Resorts Private Limited appeal?
The company argued that AAVISA was a layout project and that its roads and open spaces had already been gifted to the local authority on 31 August 2010. It therefore sought to set aside the registration direction.
Were the Kotak entities found to be promoters?
The supplied text does not give the Tribunal's final finding. The Kotak entities argued that they were investors rather than promoters, while the allottee challenged that position.
Does the supplied text reveal who won the appeals?
No. The supplied text ends while discussing the issues raised by the allottee and does not include the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's final decision.
