Mumbai: Thousands of MahaRERA recovery orders pending

Due to the delay in getting justice, many people seldom exercise their right to challenge the developer under MahaRERA. File pic for representation

With less than 10 percent of MahaRERA recovery procedures being implemented, many flat buyers continue to suffer. The authority of recovery procedures is given to the Collector's office, but due to delay in recovery process, thousands of recovery orders by MahaRERA are still pending.

Chartered accountant Ramesh Prabhu, founder chairman of MahaSEWA, said, "As per statistical data, since MahaRERA came into existence three years ago, a total of 12,452 complaints have been registered with it (of these 11,703 complaints were against MahaRERA registered projects and 749 complaints were against unregistered projects). In all, MahaRERA has passed 8,565 orders (7,895 orders in case of registered projects and 670 in case of unregistered projects) after giving due hearing to all parties concerned. Nearly 65 percent of the total 8,565 orders directing the developer to pay interest for delayed possession or recovery directives under section 40 of MahaRERA, need to be implemented by the Collector's office."

"With less than 10 percent (since Maha RERA began) of refund orders actually getting executed, the litigants have to wait longer, even after getting a favourable order from MahaRERA. Due to this delay in getting justice, many affected parties are seldom exercising their right to challenge the developer under MahaRERA, for various violations," said Prabhu.

Avinash Pawar, vice president, MahaRERA Bar Association

Lawyers involved in MahaRERA cases claim the delay is due to lack of staff in the Collector's offices or even lack of willingness to execute the orders or even influence exerted to not execute them.

Prabhu cited a recent order by MahaRERA against a residential project by a subsidiary company of Cable Corporation of India, called CCI Projects in Borivili (E). The flat buyer's contention was that of delayed possession, secondly various amenities as promised, were not completed, and thirdly the developer allegedly diverted the funds into other activities. The flat buyer challenged him before MahaRERA. Prabhu who represented some flat buyers in the project, said, after all the sides were heard collectively, B D Kapadanis, Member MahaRERA found the developer was at fault and imposed a penalty of Rs 1 crore, other than giving 9 percent interest for the delayed possession to all the aggrieved parties. The order was uploaded on Friday (November 6).

However, Prabhu is skeptical that the developer is bound to challenge the order in the appellate tribunal, and later in Bombay High Court. Justice is thus delayed for the litigants. The CCI project was started in 2010 and possession was to be given from 2015-2016, which is already a delay of five years and now the litigation, could further go on, giving no respite to the flat buyers.

Prabhu added, "MahaRERA should take proactive measures by following in the footsteps of Gujarat and Rajasthan RERA, which have taken the Collector's office staff on deputation to execute the order, where developer's property has to be attached u/s 40 of RERA act, to repay the flat buyer. Unfortunately, in Maharashtra, thousands of developers / builder's property attachment orders are pending, due to lack of support from the Collector's office."

Avinash Pawar, vice president, MahaRERA Bar Association, who also represented maximum clients in the CCI case said, "We stressed that the Cable Corporation of India be made co-promoter in the case, as the maximum assets including land are owned by CCI, but smartly to safeguard the company's main assets, they put forward a subsidiary concern called CCI Projects for their construction activity, and registered their Borivli project with MahaRERA. After hearing all parties, B D Kapadnis, ember MahaRERA, passed an order in favour of the litigants."

Pawar added, "While registering any new projects, especially in cases where large corporate houses have titles to the project land, they should be made co-promoters in the larger interest of common flat buyers, as co-promoters can be held responsible for completion of the project, in case the subsidiary company fails to honour the promises given to the flat buyers."

Pawar suggested that this issue of litigant's concern can be sorted out, provided MahaRERA, appoints a recovery officer, who can coordinate with the Collector's office to check the recovery status and assist in auctioning process. "MahaRERA members can also make confidential adverse recommendation to the state government against select Collector's staff in case of dereliction of duty, and for non-execution of MahaRERA recovery orders under section 40 of RERA Act," he said.

Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, who has been taking up MahaRERA cases, is of the view, "The orders passed by MahaRERA for attachment of the property of the developer have to be enforced through the office of the collector, which unfortunately is a very tedious and long drawn process. I have numerous orders from MahaRERA in favour of my clients, but they are yet to be implemented from the Collector's office. Therefore, the RERA act should be amended, and more powers for recovery and machinery to realise the amount should be given to RERA authorities, or else the litigants will continue to fight the developers with no justice."

"Most of the orders passed by MahaRERA are either challenged in appeal or unexecuted for want of procedural defect and system paralysis. This is due to over complicated procedures adopted by MahaRERA and the appellate tribunal. since there is no coordination between the two," advocate Nilesh Gala said.

Keep scrolling to read more news

Catch up on all the latest Mumbai news, crime news, current affairs, and a complete guide from food to things to do and events across Mumbai. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates.

Mid-Day is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@middayinfomedialtd) and stay updated with the latest news