Development charge for 10K sq ft projects?

Ref: TOI  Dt: 01/06/2010
Mumbai: The state urban development (UD) department has suggested that a development charge for all new construction projects over 10,000 square feet be charged for funding public facilities such as transport and infrastructure. At the same time, the department has also suggested betterment charge in areas where monorail passes. They propose to collect it as a one-time charge. This proposal was put forth by UD secretary Manukumar Srivastava in a war-room meeting held in Vidhan Bhavan on Wednesday. The meeting was chaired by chief minister Ashok Chavan. 

    The state recently got a blow when the FSI in suburbs was curtailed by the judiciary. The government is now proposing an amendment in the Maharashtra Region Town Planning Act to allow more FSI and collect a premium. 
    One of the IAS officers also suggested that the premium collected by the state government in developing Dharavi should be used for the betterment of the city, instead of collecting the betterment and development charges. 
    “With a view to expediting implementation of development works,” said Chavan, war-rooms should be set up at the district level as well.

Process and Procedure Of Redevelopmant

     A Redevelopment arrangement being with the conception of the idea to redevelop and ends with actual occupying of the new flats/units in the reconstructed building/s.

v     Government Directive on Redevelopment

There are a large number of projects under process for redevelopment of the buildings of co-operative housing societies in the State of Maharashtra. There are numerous complaints received by the Government form members against the management of the co-operative housing societies undergoing redevelopment some of these are listed below:

·                    Members are not taken in confidence

·                    Transparency is not observed in the tendering process

·                    Appointment of contractors is haphazard

·                    Breaches of the provision of MCS Act, Rules and Bye-laws in the working of the societies

·                    Lack of co-ordination between the appointed engineer and the project consultant

·                    Non preparation of feasibility report

·                    Proper procedure not followed in the selection of tender

·                    Disparity in the Development Agreement

The commissioner of co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Society, Maharashtra State Pune had appointed a study group under the chairmanship of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, CIDCO. The said group under consultation with all concerned in the field unanimously opined that there housing societies. Therefore as per the section 79(A) of the Maharashtra co-operative Society Act,1960 an order has been passed in that respect called “co-operative Housing Societies Buildings Redevelopment Directives”. It is now obligatory for all co-operative housing societies follow the directives if they are in the process of or contemplating redevelopment.

v                      Redevelopment on recommendation of Managing Committee

The idea of redevelopment is conceived by managing committee when the building has aged and is about 35-40 years old. At first the society should arrange for a structural survey of the building. On receipt of the survey report a meeting should be called of the Managing Committee and this must be conducted in the presence of the Structural Engineer concerned. His observations and recommendations are to be studied. Thereafter a Special General Meeting should be called.

 According To Shri Mahendra Sawant ( Architectural Head Of LandguruZ ), It Is Very Important That The Members & Their Families Should Gain The Right Knowledge  of The Process of Redevelopment And Than Work Towards Unitedly And With Co-ordination.

Bldr gets jail for not executing conveyance deed

Ref: TOI Dt:27/06/2010

In a landmark judgment, a district consumer Disputes redressal forum has sentenced a developer to two years’ jail for not executing the conveyance deed in favour of a Malad society despite directives by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
    On June 23, the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum—comprising president S B Dhumal and member S S Patil—held developer Bimal Gariba guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment, besides imposing a fine of Rs 10,000.
    Advocate Kiran U Patil, who represented the society, said, “This is probably the first time in Mumbai that a developer has been sent to jail for not executing the conveyance deed. The developer had even refused to sign on the draft of the conveyance deed, which he had made himself.’’
    Observing that the developer had not complied with the directive time and again, the court noted, “Gariba had deliberately avoided executing the deed of conveyance as directed by the National Commission. The accused has (also) avoided complying with the aforesaid order.’’
    The developer’s advocate, Anant Patwardhan, did not respond to calls and SMSes.
    In 2006, Malad Dipti Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Ltd moved the consumer forum against Gariba Construction Co Ltd after it failed to execute the conveyance deed despite the developer having received payment from the members toward formation society in 1985. The society had also urged that directive be issued to the developer to obtain occupation certificate (OC) from the BMC.
    In July 2007, the forum asked the developer to execute the conveyance deed and obtain the OC. In April 2008, the developer preferred an appeal before the state consumer disputes redressal commission against the district forum’s order. In June 2008, the state commission dismissed the appeal.
    The developer preferred an appeal in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which refused to grant the stay. In August 2009, the commission asked Gariba to execute conveyance deed and secure OC, but allowed him to file a review petition, which was dismissed by the state commission.

According To Sr.Adv. G.V. Nayak and Adv. Madhuri Gaikwad (Legal Team Of LandguruZ), 
As per section 13 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, not giving the conveyance is an offence and the builder can be imprisoned for 3 years or fined or both.

According to Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, it is mandatory to take necessary steps to execute the conveyance within a period of four months of registration of the Society or limited company. 

Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 states, that promoters should convey the right title, interest, etc. and execute documents according to agreements.

Following are some of the remedies to get the conveyance of land building in favour of the society :

1) If the builder does not co-operate in executing the conveyance in favour of the society , the Society can file a Civil Suit under the Specific Relief Act  1963 in order to get the conveyance executed. The society can file a case in the Consumer Court or in the Civil Court and obtain ex-party decree in favour of the Society. The same decree can be registered with Sub-register as conveyance and the property card can be changed in the name of the society thereafter

2)  To file criminal case as per section 13 of MOFA Act 1963.

3)  To file case for defective service under consumer protection Act, 1986.

       4) To file an application before competent Authority—District Deputy Register of Co- operative of Societies

Builder To Stand By Old Terms Of Redevelopment

Ref: TOI Dt:26/06/2010
Relief for Sangam Society Residents

Mumbai: In A Major Relief For Residents Of Santa Cruz’s Sangam Cooperative Housing Society, The Builder Redeveloping Their Property Has Finally Agreed To Stick To The Original Terms Of Agreement He Had Signed With The Society.

    In April2009, TOI Had Reported How The Builder, Bricklayer Constructions (Rustomjee) Had Left The Residents High And Dry – The Developer Was To Give 26% Extra Space To Each Of  The Flat Owners Whose Old Apartments Ranged From 558 Square Feet To 900 Square Feet In Size. However, After Demolishing Their Three-Storeyed Building Located On S.V. Road In May 2008, Bricklayer Turned Around And Told The 32 Residents It Would Now Give Them Only 10% Additional Space In The New Building.

   When Residents Protested, The Builder Stopped Paying Rent Of Rs33,000 To Rs55,000 A Month To Each Flat Owner For Their Transit Accommodation. A Spokesperson For Rustomjee Told TOI The Issue With The Society Had Now Been Resolved. “We Have Decided To Give Them The Additional Space As Agreed Upon. The Work Has Already Commenced At The Site,” He Said. Residents Said That The Matter Was Now Amicably Resolved After A Series Of Meetings With The Developer. “He Has Already Started Paying Rent To All The Members With Retrospective Effect,” They Said.

   However, Sources Claimed There Was Also “Political Intervention” At The Highest Level To Solve The Issue. “A Prominent Developer Who Is Believed To Be Close To A Union Minister Brokered The Agreement Between The Two Parties. The Residents Are Relieved Because Many Feared They Would Have No Roof Over Their Heads If The Matter Had Not Been Resolved Soon,” Said Sources. Since The Past Ten Months, The Middleclass Residents Were Paying Hefty Rents From Their Own Pocket.

    The Society Had Appointed The Builder In 2005 To Redevelop The Dilapidated Building. According To The Agreement For Development Signed In July 2007, Rustomjee Was To Provide Each Member 26% Extra Space And Also A Hardship Allowance Of Rs 8.5 Crore To The Society And 22 Months Rent Running Into A Few Crore So That The 32 Residents Could Lease Flats In Neighboring Area Until The Redevelopment Was Complete.

   However, The Economic Downturn Last Year Forced The Builder To Change The Plans-He Informed The Residents That The Project Was No Longer Feasible Because Of The Crash In The Property Market And Told Them To Accept Only 10% More Space. The Builder Claimed He Would Still Lose Rs5.5 Crore Even After Reducing The Extra Space To 10 %. The Only Option That Society Had Was To Move The Court. But The Fear Of Prolonged Litigation Made Them Realize That They Had To Some How ‘Persuade’ The Developer To Stick To The Agreement.

 According To Vice President Of LandguruZ-“The Agreement Between The Society/Individual Members & The Developer Has To Be Meticulously Drafted Ensuring Only One Interest i.e. To Safe Guard The Society Individual Member’s Redevelopment Rights”.

  Work With The Developer In Such A Way That He Dose Not Go Back With His Commitments Does Done With The Society And Individual Members Thereby Not Halting The Project Midway.

Society decision final, says HC

Ref: TOI Dt: 26/06/2010

Rules Minority Can’t Obstruct A Redevpt Project

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has once again ruled that members of a co-operative housing society who are in minority cannot obstruct a redevelopment project and must abide by the majority decision of the society, unless they show that here is some prejudice caused to them or a fraud has been committed. 
    The decision came in a judgment pronounced on Friday by Justice S J Kathawala while giving a thumbs up to a petition filed by the Godi Kamgar CHS (Madhuvan) in Andheri (W) and Bharat Infrastructure and Engineering Ltd, a developer challenging a March 2008 order passed by the Maharashtra co-operative appellate court. 
    The HC ruling, the detailed copy of which will be available later, also made it clear with a direction to the society that it must allot flats to about 20-odd minority members out of the 172 members across seven buildings in the society which were constructed in 1965. The allotment has to be made with a week as the new 18-storey tower has already been constructed. If they refuse to vacate their old premises then the co-operative society is empowered to take possession of flats, if necessary with police help. 
    The judgement on the issue, whether minority members in a co-operative society can obstruct redevelopment project or not, is significant because it essentially comes on a petition filed by the co-operative society which had taken the proper route of going to a co-operative court first. The developer, who was also a petitioner before the HC but not before the co-operative court, said that he has already spent over Rs 20 crore in the reconstruction that began with a bhoomipujan in 2004, but the main plea was that the “majority decision of the society by 153 members must hold good” over the disputing minority. 
    The society through its lawyer Mukesh Vashi also pointed before the HC that the new building was already granted an OC in 2007. The redevelopment project was knocked about in various courts. The minority members had moved the city civil court earlier for an injunction to stop the development work but were not granted any relief and they also failed to get any reprieve in the cooperative courts. 
    Later the co-operative court ordered the society to hold a meeting and allot flats to all. The 20-odd members opposed and the appellate court set aside the cooperative court’s order, which came to be challenged before the HC. Advocate P Bharucha for the minority members argued that a recent HC judgment allowed minority members to obstruct the work, besides the redevelopment was in violation of building plans and was replete with illegalities committed by the society while deciding on the redevelopment. 
    Vashi said a majority decision is binding on the dissenting members unless there was some fraud. Besides, he said the society has a right to evict the minority dissenters. In the new building, 64 out of the 87 flats are already occupied by the old members. 
    THE COURT RULES 
    2007: In the Sahara Co-op Hsg Society (Khar) case Justice A M Khanwilkar of the Bombay HC had paved the way for easy redevelopment by ruling that dissenting minority members could be evicted forcibly 
    Dec 9, 2009: Justice S C Dharmadhikari (HC) separately held that even a single dissenting member of a co-op housing society cannot be thrown out by a builder based on a mere development agreement with the society and a majority of its flat owners for redevelopment of the building 
    Dec 11: A division bench of the Bombay HC overturned the single judge verdict and then Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice Ajay Khanwilkar held that “merely because some members in minority disapprove of the decision, it cannot be the basis to negate the resolution of the general body”

WHEN REDEVELOPMENT COMES TO A STANDSTILL!

Ref:MM Dt :25/06/2010

Unrealistic offers can often lead to redevelopment projects being stalled and leave residents in a fix.

 After years of being a real estate consultant in Chembur, Venkatesh Aiyer found himself involved in the redevelopment process of his building and he admits that the process was quite tedious. "When it comes to redevelopment, residents have little knowledge of what their building's plot is worth and how best it can be redeveloped. Small-time contractors come up with impossible offers; often, there is political involvement and local goons try to influence residents. The result is sheer mayhem," he complains. 
    Rarely, do we find a situation where the offer made is viable, and by a developer who knows the business and has the finances to sustain through the entire process. "Getting the right advice from the right individuals, vis-à-vis taxation, legal or architectural issues, is a must before any offer is considered seriously," he insists. "At times, committee members may also look for personal gains, rather than ensuring a fair deal for members," he adds. 
    In Malad, developer Vivek Abrol agrees. He mentions a redevelopment project that was almost his but ultimately didn't come to his company. "The company that was selected by the committee has not done anything, in terms of demolishing the old building, providing the residents with alternative accommodation, or starting work on the new project," he says. Residents tell him that the chosen developer got the deal by making an offer that was 'too good to be true'. "It is not an isolated instance," says Abrol. "The greed of members and underhand dealings by developers often delay such project - at times, for too long," he points out. 
    Arun Saxena, president of International Consumer Rights Protection Council, maintains that "The process needs to be made more transparent." He lists some common issues that cause problems: wrong calculation by builders, greed of committee members, non-cooperation from investors, disputes regarding the clauses in the agreements, income tax liabilities, unrealistic expectations of builders vis-à-vis FSI and government policies, etc. 
    Documentation is important, says CA Tarun Ghia. He suggests that redevelopment agreements need to be iron-clad, from the point of view of the society and its members, and should be drafted by the consultants of society. "Unfortunately, they are generally drafted by the consultants of the developer and are vague," he cautions. 
    Redevelopment involves dealing with multiple owners, and individual legal issues can stall the entire process, says Sangeet Kumar, CEO of 1stMumbaiProperties. The society members need to be educated about the entire process, to enable them to select the right 'partner in redevelopment'. "The entire process, right from the time the societies initiate the redevelopment process, to identifying, negotiating and selecting/finalising the developer, should be transparent. However, this rarely happens," he adds. 
    In any real estate deal, due diligence is vital and a redevelopment project is no different, says advocate Vinod Sampat. "The media has reported on almost all issues that lead to stalling of redevelopment projects. In addition to this, with the good work by consumer organisations, I expect fewer delays in redevelopment projects going into the future," he says. 
    When it comes to redevelopment, it is the members of the society, who are its architects, engineers, financiers and marketers, says Abrol. "If you give away these responsibilities to others - be it the committee or the developer - and find that they worked things out to their benefit, what else one would expect?" he asks in conclusion.

Deemed Conveyance

«     Collection of Documents

Collect the relevant documents such as society registration certificate, Property card or 7/12 Extracts, Building Approval plan, Copies of Agreement for sale of flat purchasers, registration receipts, proof of payment of stamp duty, non Agricultural Order, ULC Order, Search Report, Layout Plan, City Survey Map, Architect Certificate about the utilization of FSI and the proportionate land entitlement Occupation Certificates, draft Conveyance Deed etc.

«     Steps required to be taken when document are not available

It is possible that some of the above documents may not be available with builder/promoter or he would not like to part with the same with to you.

As an Office bearer, you may collect some documents as the agreement for sale executed by the builder with each flat/shop purchaser.

Some documents can be collected form flat/shop purchasers who had taken all these documents form the builder to avail Housing Loan Form Financial Institutions/Banks and the same may be Collected form the financial institution/Bank with the help of each member.

The public document mentioned above can be collected form the respective departments. Even if one does not receive the documents form departments, a letter seeking copies of these documents should be written to the builders/landlord and respective government Departments.

This letter may mention the status of the society registration as well as the purpose for which the document is required – viz, to obtain conveyance of the land and buildings in Favour of the society.

«     Information to various authorities

Once the society is registered or thereafter at least once in a year, a letter should be addressed to the following authorities for not giving the conveyance of land and building and also not to allow transfer of TDR or use of additional FSI the said plot of land

O      Planning authorities like Municipality, CIDCO Tahsildar

O      Collector of the area

O      N.A. Department

O      U.L.C. department

O      Revenue department

O      Builders and all the partners

O      Sub-Registrar

O      Police Station

O      Builders Association and

O      Estate Agents Association

Now, builders developing roads will get more FSI

Ref:TOI Dt:23/06/2010

Mumbai: In a move that will indirectly benefit developers, the state urban development department has issued a notification that will give them 25% more floor space index (FSI) if they agree to construct a road on a portion of a land that they have surrendered to the BMC. This is over and above the 100% FSI benefit that they receive for handing over the plot for such a project. 
    The new amendment, carried out in Regulation 33 (1) of the Development Control Rules, 1991, states that when the property owner develops or constructs the road on the surrendered land at his cost, he may be granted an additional FSI equal to 25% of the area for this construction. 
    However, the notification clarifies that this modification will not apply in cases where road FSI has been utilised and occupation certificate granted. Moreover, the 25% additional FSI will be allotted to a developer only after he meets all stipulations prescribed by the civic authority. 
    The pre-modified regulation did not have any such 
provision of granting FSI to developers who construct road on the plot of land surrendered for such purpose. 
    Under the old regulation, the commissioner only had powers to grant 100% FSI to any developer who surrendered his land for road-widening or road construction without claiming any compensation. This provision has been retained in the notification that was issued on June 17. 
    Criticising the notification, architect Nitin Killawala of JVPD Association said, “The government has come out with yet another innovative method to dole out FSI benefit to developers. One cannot understand why the country’s richest municipal corporation is shying away from its responsibility of carrying out road development work from its own coffers.’’ 
    The Practising Engineers’, Architects’ and Town Planners’ Association (PEATA) had approached the authorities asking them to modify the DC Rules. Justifying the new notification, PEATA’s president Ajit Khatri said, “With this amendment, the authorities have corrected a major anomaly in the DC rules.’’

Tip from expert: Don’t be greedy

Ref: TOI Dt: 22/06/2010

Mumbai: The Bharatiya Bhavan CGHS In Khar(West) Has Been On The Block For The Past Four Years, In 2007, TOI Was The First To Report That The Society Ad Invited Sealed Bids From Various Developers And That A Navi Mumbai-Based Builder, APA, Had Offered Rs 180 Crore To The Society. There Were Several Other Leading Builders In The Fray, Including Tata Housing, Wadhwa Group, Naman Developers And Acme.

            However, The Builder Subsequently Withdrew The Offer Due To Recession And Also Because Of Infighting Between Two Groups Of Flat Owners. Some Residents Thought That APA’s Offer Was Not Enough. The Fight Culminated In A Legal Battle – Parinee Developer Now Claims It Has Helped Resolve The Issue Between The Two Groups.

            In 2006-07, A Slew Of Housing Societies In The Suburbs Had Received Phenomenal Offers From Developers If They Agreed To Redevelop Their Properties. While Some Builders Wanted Flat Owners To Move Out Permanently By Paying Them Off Handsomely, Others Agreed To Re-house Them In New And Larger Flats In The Redeveloped Property.

            However, Many Of These Deals Failed To Take Off Because Either Residents Became Too Greedy And Kept On Demanding More From The Developers Or The Builders Themselves Backtracked When The Property Market Slowed Down Two Years Ago. Sprawling Housing Colonies Like Nutan Nagar Near The Bandra (W) Station And Khira Nagar In Santa Cruz Got Stuck After Getting Offers Running Into Hundreds Of Crores. In 2007, Khira Nagar Housing Society Entered Into Agreement With The Pune-Based Kumar Developers For A Reported Rs 900 Crore For The 640 Flats In 16 Buildings. But The Project Never Took Off.

            Last April, TOI Reported About How A Developer Left Residents Of Sangam Housing Society (Santa Cruz) High And Dry After Entering Into An Agreement With Them. After Demolishing Their Building, The Developer Suddenly Turned Around And Asked The Residents To Accept Only 10% Additional Space In The Reconstructed Property As Against The 26% Extra Space Signed In The Agreement. The Residents And Developer Are Believed To Have Reached An Amicable Solution Recently.

            A Real Estate Expert Has A Word Of Advice For Housing Society Residents, “Don’t Get Greedy. Stick To Only Prominent Developers Who Have Delivered In The Past.” The Expert Further Said Some Unknown Builders In The Past Had Offered Astronomical Prices To Housing Societies, Even Outbidding The Big Guns In The Industry. These Shady Builders Are Just Fronts For Some Politicians Who Want To Roll Their Black Money In Real Estate. Housing Societies Should Stay Miles Away From Such Builders, He Warned.    

         

1-BHK flats in old Khar soc sold for Rs 4.5 cr

Ref: TOI  DT: 22/06/2010

MUMBAI: In a bonanza for residents of a Khar housing society, a builder has been buying off their mid-sized flats, paying each family between Rs 4 crore and Rs 5.5 crore. 

Mumbai-based Parinee Developers claims to have shelled out between Rs 4 crore to Rs 4.5 crore for a one-BHK flat and Rs 5 crore to Rs 5.5 crore for a two-and-a-half-BHK in the three-decade-old Bharatiya Bhavan Cooperative Housing Society, which is located at the corner of 17th Road in Khar (west). Parinee plans to demolish the buildings and set up a high-end residential tower. 

However, there is a word of caution from real estate experts. They warn these huge amounts may send wrong signals in the redevelopment market, unnecessarily create hype and raise expectations of other housing societies in the area. However, Parinee said it is paying this astronomical price only because the society has utilised barely 40% of its floor space index (FSI). 
The developer has already bought out 20 of the 37 flats in the society and said it is negotiating with the remaining flat owners. “We are finalising the purchase of the remaining 17 flats. Our acquisition cost for all the flats is around Rs 200 crore,’’ said a spokesperson for the developer. 

The society comprising six buildings, each ground plus two floors, is spread over an area of 5,570 square yards (over an acre) with ample open spaces and car parking. The one-BHKs have a carpet area of between 580 to 625 sq ft while the two BHKs are between 800 to 900 sq ft in size. 

The society has been on the block for the past four years. In 2007, TOI was the first to report that the society had invited sealed bids from various developers and that a Navi Mumbai-based builder, APA, had offered Rs 180 crore to the society. 

There were several other leading builders in the fray including Tata Housing, Wadhwa Group, Naman Developers and Acme. 
However, the builder subsequently withdrew the offer due to recession and also because of infighting between two groups of flat owners. Some residents thought that APA’s offer was not enough. The fight culminated in a legal battle—Parinee Developer now claims it has helped resolve the issue between the two groups. 

In 2006-07, a slew of housing societies in the suburbs had received phenomenal offers from developers if they agreed to redevelop their properties. While some builders wanted flat owners to move out permanently by paying them off handsomely, others agreed to rehouse them in new and larger flats in the redeveloped property. 

However, many of these deals failed to take off because either residents became too greedy and kept on demanding more from the developers or the builders themselves backtracked when the property market slowed down two years ago. Sprawling housing colonies like Nutan Nagar near the Bandra (W) station and Khira Nagar in Santa Cruz got stuck after getting offers running into hundreds of crores. In 2007, Khira Nagar housing society entered into agreement with the Pune-based Kumar Developers for a reported Rs 900 crore for the 640 flats in 16 buildings. But the project never took off. 
Last April, TOI reported about how a developer left residents of Sangam housing society (Santa Cruz) high and dry after entering into an agreement with them. After demolishing their building, the developer suddenly turned around and asked the residents to accept only 10% additional space in the reconstructed property as against the 26% extra space signed in the agreement. The residents and developer are believed to have reached an amicable solution recently. 

A real estate expert has a word of advice for housing society residents, “Don’t get greedy. Stick to only prominent developers who have delivered in the past.’’ The expert further said some unknown builders in the past had offered astronomical prices to housing societies, even outbidding the big guns in the industry. These shady builders are just fronts for some politicians who want to roll their black money in real estate. Housing societies should stay miles away from such builders, he warned. 

Basic Records Of Property And Conveyance

General

First, The Society Should Check That Records Are Properly Maintained. Proper Records Ensure That Redevelopment Proceeds Smoothly.

Property Records

The Following Documents Are Required To Be Maintained In The Respective Files:

File No. 1- Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies

Whether The Society Is Registered By The Members Themselves Or The Builder Or The Chief Promoter, It Is Necessary To Keep A File Viz, “Registrar Of Co-Operation Societies” Containing The Following Documents:

        Name Reservation Proposal

        Sanction Copy For Name Reservation By The Deputy Registrar, C.S.

        Registration Proposal With Bye-Law Copy And Other Documents   

         Required For Registration Of The Society

        Registration Certificate Of Society Bye-Laws

        Registered Bye-Laws Of The Society Bye-Laws

        Amendment To Bye- Laws Proposal Bye-Laws

        Approval Of Registered Amendment By Registering Authority

        Adoption Of Model Bye-Laws

        Approval Of Registering Authority – Adoption Of Modal Bye-Laws

        Registered Model Bye Laws

        Any Other Correspondence With The Registrar Of Co0operative Society

File No.2- BMC Record File

Whether Land Is Purchased/Developed By The Promoter Or The Society Or Flats Are Acquired Form The Builder, The Society After Its Registration Will Have To Maintain The BMC File Containing The Following Papers:

O       Application For Transfer Of Property Form The Landlord’s Name To The Name Of Society In The Books Of BMC Property Assessment Department

O       Copy Of “E” Form Duty Filled And Executed By The Society For Transfer Of Property

O       Copy Of City Survey Card Showing The Name Of The Society

O       Latest BMC Tax Paid Receipt

O       Application To Water Development For Change Of Name And Address On The Water Bill Form The Landlord’s Name To The Name Of The Society Supported With Approval Of Transfer Of Property Form BMC Property Assessment Department

O       Any Other Document As May Be Required For Transfer Of Property In The BMC Records.

File No.3 –Non-Agriculture Assessment (N.A.) Tax

O                     All Correspondence Relating To N.A. Authorities Should Be Kept In One File     

                   Viz “Non-Agricultural Tax’

O                   All N.A. Assessment Papers And The Final Order Should Be Property Filed With Zerox Copy Of Reassessed N.A. Tax Paid Receipt.

File No.4 – Property Records

     Conveyance Deed Duly Registered And Stamp Duty Paid Along With Their  Receipts

     Certified True Copy Of The Conveyance Deed By Sub-Registrar Of Assurances Where Conveyance Is Registered

     One Zerox Certified True Copy Of The Same By The Advocate Of The Society

     Index Card 2 With Two Certified Zerox Copies Therof

     “7/12 Extract” Of City Survey Office Of The Society’s Area

     Property Card In The Name Of Landlord Of Property

     Property Card In The Name Of The Society

     Urban Land Ceiling Permission If Conveyance Is Before The Date Of Abolition Of The Urban Land Ceiling Act.

     Survey Report Of The Proposed Property Form City Survey Office Before The Construction Of The Building. It Indicates The Layout Of The Plot With Marked Boundaries And Area Of The Plot. Area Is As Shown In The City Survey Report

     Survey Report Of Property Form City Survey After O.C. And B.C. Obtained, Or Just Before Obtaining Them

     All Previous Sale Deeds Of Conveyance Deeds In Respect Of Previos Transfers Of Property

        Copy Of Application Made To City Survey Office For Transfer Of Property Form Landlord’s Name To The Society’s Name Along With Copies Of Document Enclosed Therewith :

      Certified By Advocate As True Zerox Copy Of Conveyance Deed

      Certified True Zerox Copy Of Index Card 2  Showing Transfer Of Property Form Landlord’s Name To The Society’s Name

      Latest BMC Taxes Paid Receipt (Zerox Copy)

      Certified True Copy Of Property Card Showing Property In The Name Of The Landlord

      Latest N.A. Assessment Tax Paid Receipt

      Xerox Copies Of Urban Land Ceilling Permission Of Conveyance Before The Date Of Abolition Of The Act

      Copies Of Any Other Document Required By City Survey Office As Per Prevailing Practice

File No.5- Building Construction

     Sanctioned Plans Of Building, Floor-Wise Sanctioned Plans, Structural Plans

     I.O.D. And Compliance Thereon

     Occupation Certificate (O.C.)

     Building Completion Certificates (B.C)

     Commencement Certificates Form Plinth Level To Top Floor Terrace.

     Agreement Of TDR Purchased In The Name Of The Society By The Builder Duly Registered And Stamp Duty Paid With Their Respective Receipts And BMC Approval

     Architect’s Certificate Regarding Carpet Area And Built-Up Area Of Each Floor And Floor Wise

     Architect’s Certificate’ As To Construction Value Of Each Flat As Per Carpet Area And Valuation Report And Life Of Building.

     Architect’s Certificate In Respect Of Built-Up Area Of Each Flat And The Entire Building

     Architect’s Certificate In Respect Of Area Of Property, Actual Of The FSI, TDR Used, The Balance Of Unutilized Area (TDR/FSI)

     Copies Of The Agreements Of Sale To Owner Certified By The Builder Along With His Certificate Certifying The Names And Addresses Of  Purchasers Of Flats.

File No.6- Architect File

When The Society/Chief Promoter Of The Society Develops The Property One Additional File Should Be Prepared Viz. Architects File Wherein The Following Documents Should Be Kept:

      General Body Resolutions Regarding Approval Of Scheme And Development Cost Of Property, And Appointment Of Architect/Developer Or Contractor

      Appointment Letter Of Architect, Appointment Of Contractor/Developer

      Certified True Copy Of Development Agreement Duly Registered And Stamp Duty Paid And Certified True Copy Of Power Of Attorney Duly Registered And Stamp Duty Paid