Mumbai: Bombay High Court has sought the state govt’s response to the plight of flat buyers in a housing project in Taloja, Navi Mumbai, who were allegedly duped by the directors of a construction company, including jailed builder Lalit Tekchandani.
Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata on Dec 6 passed the direction on a petition by Clan City Welfare Association that represents 157 flat purchasers. In an interim relief, they stayed the attachment of properties, including nine buildings, under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (MPIDA) and restrained the home department from issuing a notification for attachment.
The association moved HC apprehending attachment of flats under MPIDA in an investigation carried out by the Economic Offences Wing. Its petition said there are nearly 1,700 flats, of which over 900 have been purchased by registered agreements. “The flats of the flat owners/petitioners should not be made part of attachment for default of the developer,” it stated.
It further stated that the underconstruction buildings are getting deteriorated and in case the proceedings under MPIDA go on, it will delay construction further.
It urged HC to direct Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to take all possible steps to complete the project of Clan City by issuing a public tender. Also, to supervise further development and completion of the project and to hand over possession of the flats to respective purchasers.
The association’s advocate Himanshu Kode argued that flats sold by the developer cannot be attached as rights are created under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act and Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. He said the developer abandoned the project. Since four years, there had been no construction and building permissions had lapsed.
The judges said the record indicates that more than 900 “gullible” flat purchasers from the middle-class economic strata were “systematically and in a well-planned manner” duped by Supreme Construction through its directors. Though they paid substantial amounts (in some cases full and up to 90% of the total consideration) to the developer by availing of loans taken from banks and financial institutions and repaying loan instalments, “their dream of having a roof on their head is totally shattered” due to the alleged misdeeds by the company and its directors.
“Taking into consideration the magnitude of the plight being suffered by the members of the petitioners,” the judges asked the state’s advocate to seek instructions from govt.
Posting the hearing in the case on Dec 13, they requested secretaries of urban development and housing departments “to look into the plight of members of the petitioners sympathetically and try to resolve the difficulties and/or problems”.
