Online Petition
Online Petition > Government/Law
Share it!
Tell A friend OR
Inform Your Friends by: Importing Your Address Book from Email Or Community Site.
Redevelopment of Housing Societies
To/Against/For: DeveloperUNHEALTHY AND UNLAWFUL PRACTICE BY CERTAIN DEVELOPERS IN REDEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING SOCIETIES IN MUMBAI :-( Aftermaths of Development Agreements executed with Societies)
Now a day, the Redevelopment proposals are grossly mooted by the Developers in old and dilapidated Cooperative Housing Societies in Mumbai Central and Suburbs.
As per the Plot area and the loadable TDR/FSI in permissible ratio i.e. 1:1, 1:1.3, 1:2 or 1:2.5 or as applicable, the Developers begin discussions with the Office Bearers/Architect/members of the Societies for the Redevelopment of Society’s property.
The Developers offer the members a bigger and posh dream houses with additional carpet area/rooms over the existing ones, displacement compensation for alternate accommodation, corpus fund and eye-catching amenities etc. The Developers construct either additional flats or commercial joint on the remaining area available at their disposal on the same plot and sale it in open market to earn the surplus. The Development Agreements and the Power of Attorneys are finally executed between the Societies and the Developers to complete the projects.
Initially, to obtain the IOD/CC from MCGM, the Developers submit the plans to MCGM as per the agreed terms in the Development Agreements executed with the Housing Society.
It has been often noticed that thereafter, during the process of redevelopment, the terms of Development Agreements as agreed upon, the unhealthy attempts with ulterior motives are made by the Developers to twist and grossly violate the rules of MRTP and DCR by unlawful planning and constructing additional/unauthorized areas that are beyond their entitlement (i.e. beyond the plot FSI and the TDR/FSI loaded) for their hidden financial gains. The buyers of such unlawful flats/properties land themselves in deals that lead to litigation at a later date.
At this stage, the Developers submit the amended plans for additional structures to MCGM which are not in conformity with the Development Agreements executed and additional/unauthorized constructions are carried out without informing beforehand or seeking formal approval from the Society's architect/Society as per the rules and bye-laws or execution and registration of further necessary Agreements to this effect.
The ill- observance of MRTP/MCGM/DCR rules and guidelines are overlooked by the sympathetic officials of the MCGM and the plans so submitted, are sanctioned without verifying the eligibility or its conformity with the Development Agreements. The Projects are completed and the Occupancy Certificates are issued without the proper inspection neither carried out by the MCGM officials nor taking pains to verify whether the actual measurement of the constructed areas tally with the final plans submitted.
It is further noticed that upon the completion of the projects, these additional/unauthorized constructions are silently regularized at the last moment by executing the Supplemental Agreements with the Office Bearers of the Societies with green handshakes/offering them handsome rewards.
Further, it is learnt that in many Societies, the Managing Committees, who execute the documents with the Developers, do not possess any legal holding as they have never filed/nor aware of filing the Indemnity Bond in Form M-20 on a Stamp required under Section 73(1AB) and Rule 58A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. The members who fail to execute such Bonds within the spicific period are deemed to have vacated his office as a member of the committee and no legal effects can be given to the documents executed by them with the Developers.
The gullible members of the Societies, unaware of the laws and rules, are taken for a ride by the Developers and the satisfied Office Bearers together with their interested associates once the projects are completed and since the members aim to get themselves re-housed in the redeveloped premises and on the other hand, the hidden financial benefits of such unauthorized/additional areas go to the Developers.
There are numerous news clips in various news papers with regard to Mumbai High Court’s reprimanding and lambasting severely the MCGM for violation of Development Control Act & Rules and are instructed to immediately issue the demolition orders to pull down such unauthorized/additional constructions and take stringent action against the erring officials for their lapses. Reference is necessary for the latest news appeared in Times City of Times of India Dated 12th Sept.2008-Illegal Constructions: HC blasts MCGM and MHADA for illegal and unauthorized constructions on Andheri-Versova- Jogeshwari belt have come under scanner of the Mumbai High Court.
Under the Development Control Rules, it has been stated that in case of unauthorized development, the Commissioner shall - (a) take suitable action which may include demolition of unauthorized works as provided in section 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966 and the relevant provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and shall take suitable action against the licensed technical person or the architect concerned.
Upholding the law for the welfare of the community is more valuable for society than extra heap of cement and concrete. Plenty of judgments are overlooked by greedy Developers to earn extra money.
The members of the Cooperative Housing Societies in Mumbai are required to be vigilant while handing over their Societies for redevelopment to such Developers who, by rewarding the Office Bearers and their associates, carry out the unauthorized/additional constructions for their hidden financial gains which they are not entitled to. When unauthorized constructions beyond the laws are the statutory norms of such Developers rather than the exception to the rules, the strict laws of the land have always to be upheld by taking stern actions under the laws.
Dilip Shah, Andheri West, Mumbai.
dilip7shah@gmail.com
Recent Comments
| Name | Comment | |
| vikram mehrotra | what is the difference in development and re development of a housing society in mumbai. | |
| ibrahim | my jhopdi making in 1996 valid in mahada | |
| mayank | i am at this moment facing builders pressure at premises situated at nahur village. all other galas r being purchased by the builder in different names of their family. we are 3 members who r facing this ire. at present i filed a suit against them. can they develop this premises without my noc. as per my agreement i possess the gala and the land below and the open land surrounding for mutual benefits of all gala owners and easement rights. now they purchased 80% og the galas and the open land is also purchased without our noc. this is 1964 structure bought by us in 1975. does the mofa/society act applicable. though there is no society formed, but isnt it a deem society and requires every members noc. | |
| Anand P Heryani | Despite all the precautions that the Society members may take during the discussions and finalisation of redevelopment agreements, the builders take the liberty of committing any number of irregularities as regards the area meant for sale in the open market. This is conveniently done as the concerned authorities turn a blind eye for obvious reasons inspite of written complaints made by the original society. This is also because the builders and the authorities know fully well that most of the societies would be uable to take up the matter legally for want of funds, manpower and the long drawn out procedure. The most common rule being flaunted is the sale of either a portion or the full terrace inspite of there being a rule to the contrary. The authorities conveniently turn a blind eye to this. With the kind of money involved in redevelopment projects, this could get only worse unless the government gets serious about these violations and makes it easier for societies to initiate legal action against such violations. | |
| njthakkar | the unscruplous developers n office bearer menance be curbed in the interest of large members and tenants community. | |
| hemant | can single member of society can stop redevelopment of any society | |
| Sugat D. Wankhede | I am an architect, this is very informative article. Many mumbaikars have faced the same problem. But keeping our eye opened we can solve the problem & can hold the command over such issue. Developers will always think for their benefit they will do anything to achieve their goal. But all the developers are not same. There r some genuine developers who thinks for themselves & also for the society. The best thing which I wanted to mention is societies should come forward to redevelop their building by themselves, by appointing their own architects & other consultants. I know finance is the major issue which doesn’t let a common mumbaikar to come ahead. But we can overcome this issue by appointing a good financer. There will be a good profit for each & every tenant. The advantage from our building will remain in our building. Believe me there will a revolution & we as an architect would love to work with such genuine teams. Regards, Sugat D. Wankhede, Skyline architects, 02227822499. | |
| manoti | Have been experiencing the same devil-may-care attitude of the mg. comm. of my society... | |
| Advocate. Ranjeet | Good Article | |
| K RAJA | Nice article.Very informative.Reflects the true position prevailing today in Mumbai.Thanks & Regards |
Sign the above petition