Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No.63 of 2022
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No.63 of 2022 delivered on 27 September 2023, dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Casa Grand Smart Town Buyers & Owners Association against M/s. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited and M/s. Grace Gated Community LLP. The Tribunal rejected claims for refunds of alternative electricity charges, car parking charges and penal interest, but directed the promoters to keep parking strictly within the approved plan unless at least two-thirds of the allottees give prior written consent to alterations.
What the appeal concerned
Appeal No.63 of 2022 was decided by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It concerned the Casagrand Smart Town project in Survey No.161/1 at Thazhambur Village, Thiruporur Taluk, in the former Kancheepuram District and present Chengelpattu District.
M/s. Casa Grand Smart Town Buyers & Owners Association appealed against reliefs disallowed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority in C.No.222 of 2021, dated 22 August 2022. The association raised issues involving title and sale deed registration, electricity supplied through alternative sources, parking, penal interest and litigation costs.
Land title and sale deeds
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded that litigation concerning the project land was pending before the High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court. The promoters also stated that Survey No.161/1 had been included in a list of survey numbers blocked from registration and that their challenge to the registration ban was pending.
The Tribunal noted that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had already issued necessary directions concerning registration of sale deeds after the title dispute was cleared and indemnification of allottees.
Key findings
Appeal No.63 of 2022 resulted in the following findings:
- Alternative electricity charges were not refundable because the association had admitted that allottees agreed to pay Rs.1,000 per month for a one bedroom apartment and Rs.2,000 per month for a two bedroom apartment.
- The promoters had allotted 351 covered car parking spaces and 10 open car parking spaces, although the approved plan provided for 169 covered spaces.
- Car parking and two-wheeler parking must be restricted strictly to the approved plan.
- Any alteration intended to increase parking requires prior written consent from at least two-thirds of the allottees.
- The claim for refund of car parking charges was rejected because the construction cost included one covered parking space, no separate collection was established, and the association did not specify amounts collected from individual allottees.
- The penal interest refund was rejected because the construction agreement permitted interest at the State Bank of India Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate plus 2 percent, and the association supplied no other details of the levy.
- The challenge concerning litigation costs was rejected.
Outcome for buyers and owners
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.63 of 2022 with the parking directions stated in its decision. The decision did not record that the title dispute or registration block had been resolved.
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 clear the title of the Casagrand Smart Town project land?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded that proceedings concerning the land title and registration ban were pending, and it did not state that the dispute had been resolved.
Can the promoters increase the number of parking spaces?
Only after obtaining prior written consent from at least two-thirds of the allottees. Otherwise, car and two-wheeler parking must remain strictly in accordance with the approved plan.
Were buyers granted a refund of alternative electricity charges?
No. The claim was rejected because the association had admitted that allottees agreed to the monthly charges for electricity supplied through an alternative source.
Did the Tribunal order refunds of car parking charges or penal interest?
No. The car parking claim lacked proof of separate charges and individual amounts, while the penal interest claim was rejected based on the construction agreement and the absence of further details.
