A rudimentary primer on how apartment owners are cheated
“The promoter of our apartments had earmarked about 5,000 sq ft on one side as open play area. Two years after he handed over the building and other facilities to our apartment owners’ association (AOA), authorities told us this land was part of a disputed private land,” describes AOA member R. Suresh, who lives in a multi-storeyed apartment building near J.P. Nagar.
When the association verified the plan, it found that the promoter had not showed the litigious piece land in the plan that was actually approved by the authorities. And the one shown to the owners at the time of agreement was a different one.
Amar Kumar M. (name changed) cites the example of a prominent builder who had built a high-end apartments complex and signed a long-term agreement with a housekeeping firm for the maintenance of common areas and facilities. There was a small problem though: the firm belonged to his relatives. This he managed to do, said Mr. Kumar, as the initial office-bearers were those close to him who had bought a few flats. The agreement was skewed to benefit the housekeeping firm, he said, and the association, to this day, is struggling with the financial burden.
Money matters
In another horror story, the fight to control the Rs. 80-crore corpus fund of a luxury apartment complex on Bannerghatta Road has reached the court. In this case, an unregistered association, which was formed by the promoter himself and was controlling the fund, challenged the formation of another comprising flat owners who discovered that funds were being siphoned off.
Owners of apartments, built by a leading property developer near Yelahanka, found too late that the plan was not approved by the Bangalore Development Authority, which was the competent authority.
What the developer had done was to secure approval from the erstwhile city municipal council, which was not empowered to sanction such plan. “I find no reason why this developer, having huge investment capacity, to adopt shortcut approach and con people,” says Abhishek Arora, AOA member.
Promising the sky
Many AOA representatives said developers had assured lifestyle facilities like tennis court, gym and so as part of common area while entering into the agreement, only to deny them free access to these after occupation.
As Vishak M. said: “The promoter [of our apartment] brought these facilities under the clause of limited common area and facilities at the time of registration without informing us.” He pointed out that it is difficult to establish that the developer had unilaterally changed the agreement and stressed the need for a stringent law to control the real estate business.
our family friend from muscat oman had bought 3 bhk flat in sjr just nearby l and t.
he had lot of problems getting possession, like paying an extra of 8 lakhs etc.,
ultimately got it registered. but now BDA says it is un authorised and lokayukta have
issued notices to vacate. but now it is all in court and God knows when will be this
solved!
I entirely agree with Shravan. You should help the prospective customers to be more vigilant while dealing with such reputed(?) builders
Why not reveal the names of the promoters that being discussed in this article. It will be a chance for them to respond with their side of story and also such stories from similar promoters will come to light. Also it will enlighten the customer what to expect when dealing with promoters as these..please help.
Please Email the Editor