MIS CONCEPTIONS OF LIVING IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX- THE BUILDER PROMISES HEAVEN IN THE BROCHURE AND THE BUYER FINALLY LANDS IN A DIFFERENT WORLD

AS NOTED, IT IS A COMPLEX ISSUE, `LIVING IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX`, INVOLVES TOO MUCH OF COMPROMISE & CO-OPERATION.

THE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS MOST OF THE CASES MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY CONDUCT OR MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEADING SUCH AN ORGANISATION IS A `THANKLESS JOB`.

SECURITY:
ONE/TWO HUMAN BODY WILL BE PRESENT IN THE GATE, USUALLY WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY TO HANDLE THE VISITORS AND THE `HARD SITUATIONS`.

GARDEN:
THE TREATED WATER FROM THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT IS UTILISED TO WATER THE GARDEN AND CLEAN THE COMMON AREAS.  IN MOST OF THE CASES, THE STP DOES NOT PROPERTY FUNCTION AT ALL.  HENCE, CONTAMINATED WATER MIGHT BE USED, LEADING TO MANY SKIN, RESPIRATORY AND PHYSICAL DISORDERS.

SWIMMING POOL.
THERE MUST BE A PROPERLY TRAINED GUARD TO SUPERVISE THE SWIMMERS ALONG WITH SAFETY TOOLS, WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

MAINTENANCE.
GENERALLY, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE OF DG SETS MUST BE MAINTAINED BY PERSONS WITH EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE, BUT TO ECONOMISE THE EXPENDITURE, THE MANAGER AND HIS ASSISTANT OR AN UNPROFESSIONAL GROUP WILL BE ENTRUSTED, WILL RESULT IN CHAOS.

ASSOCIATION.
THERE WILL BE MULTIPLE GROUPS WITHIN THE ASSOCIATION, EACH GROUP DRAGGING THE ASSOCIATION TO THE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.  THE INTERACTION OF THE ASSOCIATION IS NOT AMICABLE WITH THE LOCALITES AND THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.

OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE OR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR APARTMENTS - What to do?

OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE OR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR APARTMENTS

The purchasers of flats and apartments are more concerned about A or B khata and most of them does NOT bother to verify whether the property purchased by them has a valid Completion certificate/Occupancy certificate issued by the appropriate authority and not by the scrupulous builder/developer.  The completion or occupancy certificates issued at Bangalore by the builder does not have legal sanctity at all, it is a useless and waste piece of paper. Most of the builders/developers are so cunning to such an extent, they obtain the occupancy certificate and thereafter commence or put up illegal structures and the apartment buyer does not even know about it. Hence, a thorough examination into all approvals and compliance of all the conditions laid down is for the benefit of the buyer and not for the Government or for the authorities. In simple terms, the absence of a valid Completion certificate / /Occupancy certificate, means that the building may not have been built as per approved plan, and the threat of demolition of unauthorised structure looms large. Further, if you want to sell or hypothecate the property after a lapse of say 10 years, you will not be able to do so, if you do not possess a  valid Completion certificate / /Occupancy certificate. In Bangalore alone, 50% of the apartments DOES NOT HAVE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE NOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, BUT ALL THESE APARTMENTS HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY FINANCED BY THE BANKS. In the event of an enquiry or suit or examination, the borrower is at serious trouble than the lender(banker). In such a case, the borrower is equally liable and responsible for misrepresentation of facts and for filing false or wrong affidavits stating that the building has been constructed as per the plan and the banks reserves the right to recall the loan with all damages and charges.   what about the property for which the builder has not given you a valid Completion certificate / /Occupancy certificate? What to do? Issue a notice to the builder to apply and hand over the above certificates within one month from the date of issue of your notice. If the builder does not respond, file a complaint in the consumer forum, and pray the forum to issue directions to the builder to apply and obtain the above certificates. You can also mention in the complaint that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a judgement in Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2008 that “Even if such a provision for providing completion certificate is not found in the agreement, the builder cannot escape the liability for securing the C.C. and providing a copy thereof to the owner. The law requires the builder to obtain completion certificate of such a building.” Some of the excerpts from the above judgement are as follows:- 1. "Builders violate with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge deviations much to the prejudice of the planned development of the city and at the peril of the occupants of the premises constructed or of the inhabitants of the city at large. Serious threat is posed to ecology and environment and, at the same time, the infrastructure consisting of water supply, sewerage and traffic movement facilities suffer unbearable burden and are often thrown out of gear. Unwary purchasers in search of roof over their heads and purchasing flats/apartments from builders, find themselves having fallen prey and become victims to the design of unscrupulous builders. The builder conveniently walks away having pocketed the money leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in the event of unauthorized constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition. Though the local authorities have the staff consisting of engineers and inspectors whose duty is to keep a watch on building activities and to promptly stop the illegal constructions or deviations coming up, they often fail in discharging their duty. Either they don't act or do not act promptly or do connive at such activities apparently for illegitimate considerations. If such activities are to stop, some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and non-compoundable deviations. The unwary purchasers who shall be the sufferers must be adequately compensated by the builder. The arms of the law must stretch to catch hold of such unscrupulous builders. At the same time in order to secure vigilant performance of duties,responsibility should be fixed on the officials whose duty was to prevent unauthorized construction, but who failed in doing so either by negligence or connivance." 1.2. “ If the construction is part of a building which in law requires a completion certificate or C&D forms (relating to assessment), the builder is bound to provide the completion certificate or C&D forms. He is also bound to provide amenities and facilities like water, electricity and drainage in terms of the agreement. If the completion certificate and C&D forms are not being issued by the Corporation because the builder has made deviations/violations in construction, it is his duty to rectify those deviations or bring the deviations within permissible limits and secure a completion certificate and C&D forms from MCD. The builder can not say that he has constructed a ground floor and delivered it and therefore fulfilled his obligations. Nor can the builder contend that he is not bound to produce the completion certificate, but only bound to apply for completion certificate. He cannot say that he is not concerned whether the building is in accordance with the sanction plan or not, whether it fulfills the requirements of the municipal bye-laws or not, or whether there are violations or deviations. The builder cannot be permitted to avoid or escape the consequences of his illegal acts. The obligation on the part of the builder to secure a sanctioned plan and construct a building, carries with it an implied obligation to comply with the requirements of municipal and building laws and secure the mandatory permissions/certificates.” 3). “A prayer for completion certificate and C&D Forms cannot be brushed aside by stating that the builder has already applied for the completion certificate or C&D Forms. If it is not issued, the builder owes a duty to make necessary application and obtain it. If it is wrongly withheld, he may have to approach the appropriate court or other forum to secure it. If it is justifiably withheld or refused, necessarily the builder will have to do whatever that is required to be done to bring the building in consonance with the sanctioned plan so that the municipal authorities can inspect and issue the completion certificate and also assess the property to tax. If the builder fails to do so, he will be liable to compensate the complainant for all loss/damage. Therefore, the assumption of the State Commission and National Commission that the obligation of the builder was discharged when he merely applied for a completion certificate is incorrect

UNAUTHORISED BUILDING IN WORLI- MUMBAI- CAMPA COLA WILL BE DEMOLISHED BY 11-11-2013 - ON THE ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - BANGALORE APARTMENT BUYERS - CHECK - CHECKMATE !!!!

CAMPA COLA – WORLI -  MUMBAI –          D DAY IS NOVEMBER, 11, 2013.

THE ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED STRUCTURES WILL BE DEMOLISHED

The Campa Cola illegal structure -
The Supreme Court had ordered demolition of the illegal floors on February 27 and said the residents could not approach a government or a political body for regularization of the structures.

The Supreme Court however, had given a stay for the demolition on May 2 and had given the residents five months to vacate. The Bombay High Court on September 26 dismissed a writ petition by the residents of Campa Cola compound seeking regularisation of 35 illegal floors.

However, after pleading the Supreme Court for allowing them to go to BMC for retaining the area which they could, the Court has denied all the pleads and has extended the demolition till November 11.

About 96 flats in the CAMPA COLA compound will be demolished on November 11, leaving scores of residents homeless. The residents have knocked on every door in search of relief, only to have their hopes dashed each time. 

In the calm of despair, they are even unhappy with the Supreme Court’s extension of the earlier demolition date of October 1 to November 11, as they don’t wish to live so long in fear and anxiety.

Almost 40 per cent of the residents in the 96 doomed flats have already moved out, some returning to their native places, or to live with their children. The rest, who are still staying in the upper floors of the seven buildings, are now praying for a miracle in the form of a government intervention, as they have nowhere to go and cannot afford to pay the rent in Worli area.

Court orders

The Supreme Court had ordered demolition of the illegal floors of the Campa Cola buildings on February 27 and prohibited residents from approaching any government or political body for regularising the structures. The SC, however, relented and passed a stay order on May 2, giving residents five months time to vacate.

On September 26, the High Court had dismissed a writ petition by the residents, seeking the regularisation of the 35 illegal floors. But after much pleading with the SC to allow them to approach the BMC for getting hold of the retainable area, the SC put off the demolition to November 11. 

Total number of floors to be demolished from the seven buildings

Stacking up the numbers
Of the seven buildings facing partial demolition:
2 have 17 and 20 floors respectively
2 have 7 floors
3 have 6 floors 

The Campa Cola Case

When the Supreme Court ordered the illegal floors of the buildings in Worli’s Campa Cola compound to be demolished, people across the city must have felt a fraction of the residents’ shock. This is the sort of thing that happens routinely to slum dwellers, not to folks living in Worli, not to “people like us”. Even though millions of people like us live in illegal buildings that could, by a quirk of circumstance, face a similar tragedy.

The Campa Cola residents are both victims and participants in an irony that plays out all too frequently in Mumbai. In the 1980s, three builders constructed seven buildings on a plot that previously housed a factory owned by Pure Drinks. Despite having permission to build only six floors, the builders erected many more—one building has 17 floors, another has 20. One of the builders, B. K. Gupta, conveniently pinning the blame on the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Gupta, who is now bedridden, says that it was understood that builders would exceed the permissible height and that the civic authorities would regularise the extra floors after charging penalties. Even though the BMC issued “stop work notices” between 1984 and 1989, it did nothing to actually prevent the illegal floors from being built and even collected penalties. As Gupta so aptly pointed out in a statement that can be applied to Mumbai’s real estate crisis, “It was a breach but legally approvable.”

The BMC had in fact promised to regularise the illegal floors in 1987. Rohit Malhotra, a resident since 1987 who’s been acting as spokesperson for those facing eviction, says that the civic body had agreed to regularise 67,000 square feet. It’s not known why the BMC didn’t go ahead. The same corporation is today tasked with the demolition of the illegal floors that it wilfully ignored. As is always the case with illegal constructions, it’s the residents who suffer. Like the folks who died and lost their families when a cheaply constructed, illegal building crashed in Mumbra on Thursday, April 4. For once, the bureaucrats who colluded with the builders were arrested.

But residents are not always entirely above blame. The 140 affected families claim that they had no clue(THIS IS NOT TRUE) (IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE)that their floors were illegal. “It was a complete bolt from the blue,” One  of the resident  says. “The biggest bolt was that that BMC insisted (on evicting us) within 48 hours.” The demolition, which was supposed to begin on Thursday, May 2, has since been postponed by the Supreme Court by five months. It was only in 2000, Malhotra says, that the residents found out that the buildings had not been given an occupation certificate by the BMC.(OC) However, moving into a building without the certificate is illegal and buyers should make sure the builders have it before they purchase a flat by asking to see it. In 1986, buyers were told that the building plans had been approved. But they hadn’t been, which is why the buildings had no water connection. For all these years, the residents have relied on tanker water. They applied for a water connection in 1999 but it was only in 2005 that they learned they were living in illegally constructed apartments.

It’s a vicious cycle. Builders collude with politicians and the BMC to construct buildings illegally. Perhaps tempted by a good deal, buyers overlook the irregularities. Given Mumbai’s skewed real estate market where a 476 square feet MHADA flat costs Rs55 lakh, it’s not hard to sympathise with desperate flat buyers who naively or knowingly invest in properties that aren’t entirely legal and then have faith that the same system that allowed the buildings to come up will regularise them. When building violations are found out and flat owners are threatened with eviction, politicians lobby to regularise the buildings in order gain brownie points with their vote banks. When they get away with it, builders are encouraged. If the BMC were to take action against every unauthorised construction, then vast swathes of the city, especially the western suburbs, Thane and Ulhasnagar, would be emptied.

So the Campa Cola case is unlikely to be a deterrent for builders and buyers in the future. Like Pratibha building in the Sophia College Lane, which remains a shell of a building after eight illegal floors were demolished in the early 1990s, Campa Cola will be an ephemeral cautionary tale at the most. What’s needed of course is an effective means to keep track of building plans and permissions. This would open builders and the BMC to greater scrutiny and buyers would no longer be able to plead ignorance while purchasing flats. Recently the BMC announced that it was considering putting the plans of buildings online so that buyers can keep tabs on their investments. But since making the relationship between builders and the civic authority transparent is not in the best interest of corrupt officials, it won’t be a surprise if such a website remains only a plan on paper. In which case, breaches can continue to be “legally approvable”.

1) Why is no action taken against the BMC to permit construction of illegal floors. It is obvious that construction of 7 building in campa cola compound cannot be undertaken overnight. It therefore means that the BMC had turned a blind eye during the construction period.

2) Further, the decision by supreme court asking residents to evacuate campa ccola compounds, effectively means that builders can go scot free after constructing illegal structures. Why is no penalty or action taken against builder lobby?

how come govt collect stamp duty & registration for the unauthorised flats, can’t they check before registering before it?
& these politicians fighting for slums & giving them flats under SRA type of scheme by pinching the pockets of tax payers, which is common man, whose flat will be demolished.
my advice to all, don’t buy unauthorised flats, built slums, that will never broken.
Social worker Medha patkar & politicians will surely stand by you.

SUPREME COURT OR ANY COURT OF LAW, MUST FOCUS AND UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMON MAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLDGE OF IOD/CC/OCC ETC., SO HE MUST NOT BE PUNISHED. IT IS BUILDER, MCGM OFFICERS, ARCHITECT, STATE GOVERNMENT(WHO TAKE STAMP DUTY – BLINDLY – AS IF SELLING COUNTRY IN THE HANDS OF TERORIST) ELECTRICTY DEPT. ETC WHO GIVE ALL HELP TO BUILDER. A COMMON MAN VISIT BUILDING AND PURCHASE PROPERTY. HOW HE CAN COME TO KNOW HOW BUILDING WAS DEVELOPED.

IF WE CARRY OUT A SMALL WORK IN OUR SMALL SHOP OR ROOM AND TINY DEBRIS/STONE ETC KEPT OUTSIDE ON THE ROAD OR GALLI, IMMEDIATLY A MCGM PERSON COME, TORTURE US, THREATEN US TO STOP WORK, TAKE NECESSARY AMOUNT AND GO. MEANS A SINGLE LEAF OF TREE CAN NOT REMAIN OR COME WITHOUT THE KNOWLDGE OF MCGM, THAN HOW 8 OR 10 OR 12 FLOOR CAN BE BUILD IN ANY BUILDING.

MCGM OFFICERS WHO ARE SEATING IN A.C. OFFICES SHOULD REGULARLY VISIT EACH AND EVRY SITE UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION, WHILE ISSUEING IOD/CC OR LIKE THINGS, THEY MUST ISSUE NOTICE STOP WORK NOTICE, ALSO GIVE IN PRESS, MEDIA, PUT A BOARD IN WRITING IN FRONT OF BUILDING, IF ANY UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS IS CONTINUED. ONE OR TWO FLOOR IN ANY NEW CONSTRUCTIONS IS NOT BUILDING IN TWO OR THREE DAYS IT TAKE TIME AND MCGM OFFICER CAN VERY WELL CATCH ANY CONSTRUCTION BEYOND APPROVE LEVEL.

Blogs, Facebook campaign seeking support, appeals to chief minister for issuing an ordinance, residents of Campa Cola Compound are doing all these to stop demolition of their homes. All these net and bolts may not work in favour of those sitting in armchairs and posting requests and passing remarks. The Supreme court orders have to be complied with.

The demolition of illegal floors of the seven buildings in the Campa Cola Compound will be held on November 2.

Fearing contempt of the court, residents are not speaking on record but have vented their anger against the builder and the civic body on the social networking media. They have argued how the government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) could charge taxes and stamp duty of the building which was illegal. Now, the residents are hoping for a miracle.

The apartments in the Campa Cola Compound were constructed on a land leased in 1955 to Pure Drinks Ltd, which was later permitted by the BMC in 1980 to build residential apartments.

Pure Drinks and three builders went on to build seven apartments, two of which were high-rises of 20 and 17 floors.

Seven high-rise buildings were constructed between 1981 and 1989. While the builders were granted permission for ground-plus-five floors, some of the constructions were built with extra floors. The buildings are Midtown Apartments (20 floors), Esha-Ekta Apartments (8 floors), Shubh Apartments (7 floors), Patel Apartments (two buildings, 6 floors each), BY Apartments (6 floors), and Orchid (17 floors).

Under the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) rules in force at the time, the illegal built-up area totaled to about 91,000 sq ft. According to the plan worked out by the residents, they proposed to compensate 19 flat owners, forgoing about 24,000 sq ft, if the BMC agreed to regularise the remainder 67,000 sq ft of the 83 flats.

Although the civic administration had ordered the builders to stop the construction work, they continued with it after paying fines. The residents, who bought houses more than 20 years ago, say they were unaware that the construction violated BMC norms.

The owners of 102 flats living on the floors that are to be demolished had planned to get 83 of the flats regularised by the civic body and compensate the owners of the remaining 19 flats to settle the FSI issue.

7 high-rises with illegal floors
Seven high-rise buildings were constructed between 1981 and 1989 in the Campa Cola Compound. While the builders were granted permission for ground-plus-five floors, some of the constructions were built with extra floors. The buildings are Midtown Apartments (20 floors), Esha-Ekta Apartments (8 floors), Shubh Apartments (7 floors), Patel Apartments (two buildings, 6 floors each), BY Apartments (6 floors), and Orchid (17 floors).

If you are planning to buy a house, make sure your building is legitimate by obtaining the ‘legality certificates’ or your fate my end up as the unfortunate residents of Campa Cola building in Worli. A report in today’s Times of India says that residents of Campa Cola that are staying in the illegally constructed floors will have to cough up Rs 1.9 crore— the estimated cost of demolition. Not only will they lose their homes, but one wonders how they will garner this amount as they don’t even have enough funds for the legal battle. Residents of Campa Cola Society in Mumbai Residents of Campa Cola Society in Mumbai In February, the Supreme Court had ordered the demolition of the illegal floors of buildings in the Campa Cola compound. These buildings included Midtown, Esha Ekta Apartments, Shubh Apartments, Patel Apartments, B Y Apartments and Orchid. While the builders were given permission to construct only ground-plus-five floors, Midtown ended up having 20 floors, Orchid 17, Esha Ekta and Shubh eight, BY seven, and two wings of Patel six floors each. That the developer had not obtained the required permissions came to light only in 2005, after the occupants had been living at the compound for two decades. In May, the 140 families residing on the 35 illegal floors again moved the Supreme Court claiming that they had no idea their floors were constructed illegally. However, the SC upheld its order but granted them six months reprieve to vacate flats. Though, the residents had earlier expressed their intend to move a review petition in the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court had in July said that the residents cannot regularise an illegal structure by buying additional FSI.

Many residents of Campa Cola compound in Mumbai's Worli, whose illegal flats were to be pulled down by Civic Authorities on Thursday, are angry and frustrated even after the Supreme Court extended the deadline for demolishing the 140 flats in the housing society.

But like residents of 35 illegal floors, he does not have an Occupation Certificate. Their eight year struggle to regularise their flats has yielded nothing.