#ANSAL THE FRAUDULENT BUILDER अंसल धोखेबाज़ भवन निर्माता
#FRAUDULENT BUILDER ANSALधोखेबाज़ भवन निर्माता #अंसल
CONCEPTS & EXTRACTS IN HINDUISM
By :: Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj
dharmvidya.wordpress.com hindutv.wordpress.com santoshhastrekhashastr.wordpress.com bhagwatkathamrat.wordpress.com jagatgurusantosh.wordpress.com
santoshkipathshala.blogspot.com santoshsuvichar.blogspot.com santoshkathasagar.blogspot.com bhartiyshiksha.blogspot.com santoshhindukosh.blogspot.com palmistrycncyclopedia.blgspot.com
santoshvedshakti.blogspot.com
Video link :: https://youtu.be/QR576rhUt1Q
Video link:: https://youtu.be/a9V_y2fRld0
Video link :: https://youtu.be/2heaAKqrbvo
Video link :: https://youtu.be/l0tZyW6wfpQ
Video link :: https://youtu.be/1KxULpfGR7g
Video link :: https://youtu.be/RpjXcS_0U2g
Video link:: https://youtu.be/a9V_y2fRld0
Video link :: https://youtu.be/2heaAKqrbvo
Video link :: https://youtu.be/l0tZyW6wfpQ
Video link :: https://youtu.be/1KxULpfGR7g
Video link :: https://youtu.be/RpjXcS_0U2g
अक्षरं परमं ब्रह्म ज्योतीरूपं सनातनम्।
गुणातीतं निराकारं स्वेच्छामयमनन्तजम्॥
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भुर्मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥
[श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता 2.47]
सेवा में,
(1). मुख्यमंत्री, उत्तर प्रदेश, (2). पुलिस महानिरीक्षक उत्तर प्रदेश, (3). पुलिस आयुक्त,
गौतम बुद्ध नगर, UP, (4). SHO दादरी पुलिस थाना, गौतम बुद्ध नगर, उत्तर प्रदेश।
विषय :: अंसल बिल्डर द्वारा ईo 2,012 डुप्लेक्स भवन, 363 व.मी, भूमि क्षेत्रफल 313 व.मी, भवन के आगे और पीछे अतिरिक्त 50 व.मी, खाली भूमि और भवन के आगे 10 हैक्टेयर का पार्क रुo 35,85,636 लेकर ईo 2,014 में भवन का कब्ज़ा न देना।
FIR AGAINST FRADULANT ANSAL BUILDERS
महोदय,
मैं ईo 1,968 रामनवमी से राष्ट्रीय स्वयं सेवक संघ का सदस्य और हिन्दु धर्म प्रचारक, नई दिल्ली नगर पालिका परिषद में अध्यापक परिषद का महासचिव, सेवा निवृत्त प्रधानाचार्य, 73 वर्ष की आयु में कैंसर (जो कि इस प्रकरण की वज़ह से हुआ है) का मरीज़ हूँ।
मैंने अंसल बिल्डर्स की Daffodil-Blooms in SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS, adjoining Greater Noida-Bodaki in Utter Pradesh में house No. 5/102 हेतु ईo 2,014 तक रु 35,85,636 जमा कराये। मुझे ईo 2,014 तक मकान मिल जाना चाहिये था, जो कि अब तक नहीं मिला। इसमें मंत्री, कर्मचारी वर्ग, पुलिस के साथ-साथ न्यायपालिका की लिप्तता पाई गई।
.jpg)
मैंने जून 2,019 में SSP G.B.Nagar लिखित शिकायत करके FIR दर्ज़ करने का आग्रह किया। एक हप्ते बाद परीचौक पुलिस चौकी से फ़ोन आया और मुझे वहाँ आने के लिए कहा गया। स्वास्थ्य सम्बन्धी परेशानी के कारण मैंने असमर्थता जताई तो उन्होंने मेरे से इस विषय में समस्त रसीदों को WhatsApp पर भेजने को कहा। मैंने सभी दस्तावेज़ उन्हें भेज दिये। मगर इस पर कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गई।
01.10.2021 को हम DCP महोदय से मिले तो उन्होंने हमारी अर्ज़ी स्वीकार कर ली।
कोई कार्यवाही न होने पर हम पुनः 29.12.2021 को DCP कार्यालय गये, मग़र तब तक उनको स्थानांतरित किया जा चुका था। हमें तत्काल DCP और ACP से मिलने नहीं दिया गया। UPPER ACP ने हमसे एक घण्टे तक प्रतीक्षा कराई मगर मुलाक़ात के दौरान उन्होंने हम पर नाजायज़ दबाब बनाया और बेरंग लौटा दिया।
मैंने आख़िरकार थक-हार कर मैंने DGP, POLICE COMMISSNER और आप को 07.01.2022 को ईमेल भेजी हैं। भेजी जिसके बाद मैंने जन सुनवाई पोर्टल jansunwai.up.nic.in पर पंजीकरण क्रमांक 40014122000461 शिकायत दर्ज़ कराई; जिसको थाना बीटा ग्रेटर नोएडा ने फिर से दफ़न कर दिया।
UP RERA Complaint No. NCR144/08/1793/2019, Customer Code :: 502/S0046 के दौरान हमें म्यूट (Mute) कर दिया गया और आज तक मुझे निर्णय नहीं बताया गया।
अंसल के वकील A.K. Shukla (akshukla@ansalapi.com), जे मुझ पर नाजायज़ दबाब बनाने की कोशिश की।
हमने अपने PF की पूरी रक़म इसमें लगा दी। इस समय उस ज़मीन की कीमतें सौ गुना हो चुकी हैं और ब्याज़ और मूलधन की कुल राशि लगभग ढ़ाई करोड़ रूपये बनती है। इस प्रकरण में लगभग 65,000 रूपये प्रति मास की जो आर्थिक हानि हुई है वो अलग है।
आपसे विनम्र अनुरोध है कि मुझे पूरी रक़म ब्याज़ और हर्ज़ाने के साथ वापस दिलवा दें।
अंसल की पूरी और चल और अचल सम्पत्ति को कुर्क करायें और न्याय दिलायें।
प्रार्थी,
संतोष कुमार भारद्वाज,
दस्तख़्त
Dt. 26.03.2025.
(2). सुप्रीम कोर्ट में writ दाख़िल की ख़ारिज कर दी गई।
(3). 2019-23 तक G.B.Nagar नोयडा में DCP और कमिश्नर तक 3 बार शिकायत FIR दर्ज करने की कोशिश :- नतीजा शून्य।
(4). मिनिस्टर ने कमिश्नर पर दबाब डाला और शिकायत FIR दर्ज नहीं हुई।
(5). MP ने संसद में मामला उठाया मगर फिर भी शिकायत FIR दर्ज नहीं हुई।
(6). J.P.Nadda ने वायदा करा कि मामले से प्रधानमंत्री को अवगत कराया जायेगा :- परिणाम शून्य।
(7). निवेशकों का 600 करोड़ रुपया गबन करके विदेशों में निवेश किया, मगर कोई कार्यवाही नहीं। हजारों निवेशकों ने जलूस निकल, धरना दिया मगर सब बेकार। यह वैसा ही साबित हुआ जैसे "भैंस के आगे बीन बजाना"।
(8). RERA में online सुनवाई के दौरान मुझे जानबूझकर mute कर दिया। सबूतों और emails को नजरंदाज कर दिया गया। मुझे आज तक निर्णय की कापी डाक अथवा email से नहीं दी गई।
(9). सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बिल्डर्स से अथॉरिटी की बकाया राशि की वसूली के लिये 23% ब्याज़ और हर्जाने का प्रावधान किया। अंसल ने हमसे 18% ब्याज लिया वो भी उस राशि पर पहले से ही जमा थी। RERA हमको महज़ बैंक के दर से रकम की RC जारी करता है। गुरुगाँव RERA के ख़िलाफ़ पुलिस में शिकायत दर्ज करता है मगर G.B.Nagar RERA को ऐसा करने में परेशानी है।
(10). चीफ मिनिस्टर योगी को गोरखपुर में व्यक्तिगत रूप से तीन बार ज्ञापन देने के बाद भी कोई कार्यवाही नहीं हुई।
 |
(12). मायावती और अखिलेश के राज में खुली लूट हुई, किसानों की खेती की बहुमूल्य जमीनें अधिकृत करके बिल्डर्स में बन्दर-बाँट कर दी गईं।
(13). प्रोजेक्ट में रोड़ा अटकाने को रेलवे ब्रिज बनाने की बात कहीं गई मगर 2012 से आज तक न तो पल बना और नहीं भवनों का निर्माण हुआ। मैंने अपनी और अपनी पत्नी की पूरी की पूरी राशि इसमें लगाई मगर आज तक कुछ भी नहीं हुआ। अन्यंत्र निवेश करता तो यही रकम 2 करोड़ से ज्यादा होती।
Video link ::
अंसल एपीआई बिल्डर ने सुशांत गोल्फ सिटी योजना में सिंचाई विभाग की जमीन पर प्रभावशाली लोगों को प्लॉट आवंटित किए हैं। उसकी जमीन पर 78 प्लॉट सृजित मिले हैं। 46 की रजिस्ट्री भी कर दी गई है। करीब 40 भूखंड आईएएस, आईपीएस, पीसीएस, प्रभावशाली नेताओं तथा रिटायर जजों को आवंटित किए गए हैं। 16 पर बड़ी कोठियाँ खड़ी हो गई हैं। कुछ पर एक मंजिल मकान तो कुछ पर बाउंड्रीवाल बन गई है। छह विभागों की टीम ने सर्वे के बाद सीबीआई को जमीन की पैमाइश की रिपोर्ट सौंप दी है। असल बिल्डर ने सुशांत गोल्फ सिटी के लिए सिंचाई विभाग की नहर को पाटकर उस पर भी प्लॉटिंग कर दी थी, फिर उसने इसे प्रभावशाली लोगों को बेच दिया। उच्च न्यायालय ने इस मामले में सीबीआई जांच का आदेश दिया था। सीबीआई ने अपनी निगरानी में नहर की जमीन की पैमाइश कराई है। पैमाइश में सिंचाई विभाग, लोक निर्माण विभाग, जिला प्रशासन, एलडीए, सीबीआई, अंसल एपीआई तथा एक निजी एजेंसी शामिल थी। पता चला है कि सिंचाई विभाग की जमीन पर आवंटित किए गए 78 प्लॉट में से 70 आवासीय हैं। आठ प्लॉट व्यावसायिक, ग्रुप हाउसिंग व स्कूल के हैं। हालांकि इन सभी भूखंडों में से कुछ का आधा तो कुछ का आंशिक हिस्सा ही नहर की जमीन में आया है। सी ब्लॉक में सर्वाधिक 53 भूखंड बेचे गए :- अंसल एपीआई बिल्डर ने सी ब्लॉक में सबसे अधिक 53 भूखंड बेचे हैं। यहाँ सेक्टर सी एक के पॉकेट एक से लेकर छह तक में यह प्लॉट काटे व बेचे गए हैं।
|
डबल इंजन की सरकार कैसे काम करती है, उसका यह एक उदाहरण है। भ्रष्टाचार चरम सीमा पर हैं, मगर कोई सुनने वाला नहीं है। इस विषय पर सरकार की उदासीनता का क्या अर्थ समझा जाये!?
The law to regulate in the real estate industry has loop holes and yet, no serious effort has been made to fix these since the Real Estate Regulations and Development Act came into force in 2016.In its current form, several sections and subsections and also clauses and sub-clauses of the RERA Act, are contradictory and therefore, open for many legal interpretations.
 |
| 19.03.2023 |
If RERA is a regulator, then it should have power to issue directions to licensing authorities and concerned departments. Another problem, Khandelwal pointed out, is that a regulator has no power to allot funds for projects that are sick or stuck.
RERA has seen limited success with complaints and petitions being filed directly with courts and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
RERA should have the power to recover the full money of the investor and refund it to the investor with 18-23% interest along with compensation. The Pass Ports of the builders should be cancelled and all their assets seized-sealed till they settle the issue amicably.[01.12.2022]
INTEREST :: Supreme Court has allowed 18-23% interest to the Noida & Greater Noida authority from defaulter builders. The builder charged 18% interest from me over the already paid instalment. RERA has awarded critical interest of the SBI and no compensation. It appears that RERA Noida is sold out in the hands of builder mafia, politicians, bureaucrat and even the police. RERA Gurgaon is granting compensation. [06.11.2022]
(1). रामप्रस्थ बिल्डर को ब्याज और मुआवजे सहित मूलधन लौटाने का आदेश :: हरियाणा रियल एस्टेट अथॉरिटी (हरेरा) ने रामप्रस्थ बिल्डर को आदेश दिया कि आवंटी को ब्याज सहित मूलधन वापस करे। हरेरा कोर्ट ने आदेश में कहा कि आवंटी मुआवजे का भी हकदार है।
शिकायतकर्ता ने दिसंबर 2019 में प्राधिकरण के पास शिकायत दर्ज कराई थी कि फर्जीवाड़ा कर पीड़ित ने हरेरा में शिकायत थी कि वह परियोजना से पैसा वापस लेना चाहता है। हरेरा गुरुग्राम के सदस्य अशोक सांगवान ने कहा कि कोई भी अपने स्वयं के गलत कार्य का लाभ नहीं ले सकता है।
(2). कंस्ट्रक्शन कंपनी का लाइसेंस रद्द :: टाउन एंड कंट्री प्लानिंग विभाग के महानिदेशक ने गुरुग्राम सेक्टर-59 के माहिरा प्रोजेक्ट के लिए डेवलपर्स जार विला को दिए गए लाइसेंस को रद्द कर दिया है। लाइसेंस के रद्द होने से इस प्रोजेक्ट में फ्लैट बुक कराने वाले 600 से अधिक खरीदार प्रभावित हुए हैं।[27.10.2022]
आम्रपाली के खरीदार :: आम्रपाली के निदेशक अनिल शर्मा को दो सप्ताह के लिए अंतरिम जमानत मिलने से फ्लैट खरीदारों में गुस्सा है। खरीदारों ने इस फैसले पर दोबारा विचार करने के लिए उच्चतम न्यायालय से आग्रह किया है। इसके पीछे वजह बताते हुए खरीदारों ने कहा कि आम्रपाली के निदेशकों की वजह से 46 हजार लोगों की जिदंगी बर्बाद हो चुकी है। वे आर्थिक संकट से जूझ रहे हैं।
फ्लैट खरीदारों ने कहा कि हजारों परिवारों की कई दीवाली बीत गई, लेकिन आशियाना नहीं मिला। अब दिवाली से पहले निदेशक अनिल शर्मा को अंतरिम जमानत दिया जाना गलत है। खरीदारों में अनिल शर्मा को अंतरिम जमानत मिलने से गुस्सा बढ़ा और उन्होंने न्यायालय से फैसले पर दोबारा विचार करने के लिए आग्रह किया। खरीदारों ने कहा कि अनिल शर्मा ने बीमारी का हवाला दिया है, जो फर्जी भी हो सकता है। अनिल शर्मा ने पहले भी मेडिकल का हवाला देकर रिपोर्ट कोर्ट में दी थी, जो पकड़ में आ गई थी।
अनिल शर्मा के साथ-साथ बाकी किसी भी निदेशक को जमानत नहीं दी जानी चाहिए। अनिल शर्मा के खिलाफ 24 मुकदमे कोर्ट में चल रहे हैं।
अनिल शर्मा की रिहाई से खरीदारों का मनोबल गिरा है, क्योंकि आम खरीदार उच्चतम में न्यायालय में लड़ाई लड़ रहे हैं और अनिल शर्मा की रिहाई पूरे मामले को कमजोर करेगा। फ्लैट खरीदारों ने कहा कि आम्रपाली के निदेशकों ने फ्लैट बुक कराने वालों की जिंदगी भर की कमाई हड़पकर उनके सपनों को तोड़ा है। फ्लैट की ईएमआई जमा करते-करते निवेशकों की हालत खराब हो गई है। वे लंबे समय से आर्थिक संकट से जूझ रहे हैं।
नौयडा में पुलिस प्रशासन, राजनेता आदि-आदि सभी लोग BUILDERS के साथ मिले हैं। आशंका इस बात की भी हैं कि BJP और RSS के SRALWARTS बड़े-बड़े नेता भी इनमें शामिल हों।[27.10.2022]
विचार का विषय यह है कि नौयडा में RERA ख़रीददार को 18% ब्याज और समुचित मुआवज़ा क्यों नहीं देता?! सुप्रीम कोर्ट सरकारी कर्मचारी को बकाया राशि पर 18% ब्याज देता है। अंसल खुद खरीददारों से 18% ब्याज लेता रहा है तो फिर RERA गलत निर्णय क्यों देता है?!
नौयडा वेस्ट :: विभिन्न सोसाइटियों में लोग सुविधाओं के न मिलने से परेशान हैं। पटेल निओ टाउन प्रोजेक्ट के खरीदार कब्ज़े की माँग कर रहे हैं। 2,010 से लेकर अब तक, खरीदार मकान की इन्तजार में हैं। अंतरिक्ष गोल्फ़ व्यू ने विधायक और डीएम से इसकी शिकायत की है। मेफेयर रेजीडेन्सी सोसाइटी के निवासी सुविधाओं के अभाव में प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं। यही हाल पंचशील ग्रीन्स-2 का है। फेस्टिवल सिटी सेक्टर-143, में दुकानों का आवंटन दस साल बाद भी नहीं किया गया है। गौर सिटी यमुना प्राधिकरण क्षेत्र में भी प्रदर्शन हुए हैं। मेफ़ेयर के 100 से भी ज़्यादा लोगों ने बताया कि 600 से ज़्यादा ख़रीददारों को 2009 से ही अपने फ्लेट का इन्तजार है। प्रशासन, पुलिस, RERA कोई मदद नहीं कर रहे हैं। इन सफेदपोश बदमाशों से सरकार कैसे निपटेगी?![14.02.2022]
 |
| RERA GURUGAON COMPENSATION ORDER. NOIDA RERA IN UNWILLING TO DO SO. |
 |
| 08.12.2022 |
(18). Collect the inventory and check each and every fixture in advance.
(19). Obtain occupancy certificate from the builder prior to taking possession.
(20). Some times the labourers occupy the premises unauthorizedly and disfigure the walls and fixtures. Ask the builder to repaint at his own cost.
 |
| POLICE BUILDER NEXUX 08.12.2022 |
(22). Period of loan discharge should be long say :- 25 years. Keep on saving one sixth of your income and clear a fraction of the loan, as soon you have sufficient saving keeping the period of discharge-loan service long.
(23). Having serviced-repaid the loan, do not forget to collect each & every paper from the financer like HDFC.
Both Noida & greater Noida are not well equipped with fire fighting in tall buildings having 30 or more floors.
Reputation of some builders is worst. Check if the builder is a genuine person or not. Do not believe the property dealer-agent. Verify every thing your self or seek the help of some experienced person.
There are several instances of the builders who are either absconding or have gone under ground. They are seen in conversation with TV channels and some more people; but the police do not try to arrest them. Some of them are history sheeters and notorious criminals.
RISKS :: Kids, women and children slipped from the higher floors and lost their life. A three year old child lost his life yesterday. The balcony should have railing over sufficient height and no space to slide down.[16.01.2022]
In one case recently, the security guards man handled & thrashed a flat owner while he was trying to take his car inside the complex. He did not have space for parking with his flat.
The lift, lower floors and the cars had venomous Cobras. These reptiles are often seen wriggling around.
Last month the ground floor & basement were filled with sewer water.
Last year, power supply of a 14 storied building was cut off leading to trouble to the residents for more than two weeks. Life turned miserable for them.
PRECAUTION :: (1). Ensure that the society has stand by arrangements for running lift & water pumps.
(2). Ensure that the society has stand by water reservoir and water harvesting system in place.
(3). The society should have fire fighting arrangements and escape route in case of fire.
(4). The society should have ample parking space for visitors.
(5). The society must have greenery and swings, slides see-saw for kids.
(6). Before occupying house perform GRAH POOJAN
Please refer to ::
OCCUPYING NEW HOUSE गृह प्रवेश santoshsuvichar.blogspot.com
Dreaded criminals occupy the adjoining flats and your life is at risk. Recently, a lot of smuggled gold was found in one of the flats. after a number of arrests, the inquiry is still going on.
The society should have provision for converting plant waste into organic manure.
CHINTELS PARADISO PROJECTS, GURGAON :: Vertical caving of roofs and death of the residents has once again proved that the builders are using extremely low quality building material and lack expertise. They just want to extract money. Inaction even after 9 days of the episode clearly point out builder, administration, police & politicians nexus. Why BJP is not acting against the builder mafia and Noida, Gurgaon and else where?!(20.02.2022)
AJNARA :: Its not ready-willing to make refunds.
Colourful estate (Sector-78, Noida) :: OC is cancelled.
ATS do not enjoy good reputation.
Carefully go through the reviewed-comments by the investors over the internet.
The gentle man has preferred not to answer. He does not pick-answer calls made to him.[17.12.2021]
न्यायालय की नाराजगी के बाद जिला प्रशासन द्वारा बकायेदार बिल्डरों पर ये सख्त कार्रवाई की जा रही है।
 |
| DAUGHTER AND SON IN LAW OF JAI PRAKASH GAUR |
जिलाधिकारी सुहास एल. वाई ने बताया कि दादरी तहसील में रेरा के 10 बड़े बकायेदारों की सूची को लगा दिया गया है। इस सूची में सबसे बड़ा बकायेदार सुपरटेक है, जिस पर एक अरब 11 करोड़ से अधिक का बकाया है। उसकी संपत्ति को प्रशासन जब्त कर रहा है और अन्य बकायेदारों पर भी कार्रवाई भी की जा रही हैं।
 |
| SUPREME COURT ORDER AGAINST TENENTS-OCCUOANTS |
The decision in Super Tech case to demolish the towers and refund the deposit with 12% interest has come. But what about the tension, agony, mental torture to the house seekers. They paid interest over loans and house rent side by side. The Supreme Court must have considered and awarded at lest 2-3 times the deposit as compensation.[2.9.2021]
आम्रपाली के निदेशकों पर 472 करोड़ की धोखाधड़ी के आरोप ने CBI यूनियन बैंक पर आपराधिक साज़िश, धोखाधड़ी, जालसाज़ी का मुकदमा दायर किया है।[05.02.2022]
नोयडा और ग्रेटर नोएडा के अलावा पूरे NCR में ऐसे ठगों की भरमार है, जो घर की चाहत, सपने संजोने वालों को धोखा देने पर आमादा हैं। अंसल वाले कर्मचारी उन्हें अंसल में पैसा लगाने वालों की पूरी जानकारी उपलब्ध करा रहे हैं। अब तक दसियों फोन आ चुके हैं। एक बसे हुए, सुविधाओं से पूर्ण इलाके को छोड़ कर, ये लोगों को ऐसी जगह जाने को कह रहे हैं, जहाँ सड़क, बिजली, सीवर जैसी सुविधाएँ तक नहीं हैं। RERA सुनवाई के बाद एक साल से चुप्पी लगाए बैठा है। फैसला सुरक्षित है और लगता है कि रहेगा भी। ANSAL के दफ़्तर के बाहर RERA के 43 notice चुके हुए हैं। वहाँ हर वक़्त 20 से ज्यादा बिल्डरों के एजेंट बैठे रहते हैं, फाँसने के लिये।
जब बिल्डर खुद को दिवालिया घोषित करता है, जब भी उकसे पास अकूत धन सम्पत्ति होते हैं। सरकार उसका पासपोर्ट, वीसा जब्त क्यों नहीं करती!? वे हवाई जहाज़ में सफर कैसे करते हैं, 7 स्टार होटलों में कैसे ठहरते हैं?! उदाहरण जेपी का ही है। डटकर मजे लूट रहे हैं। पहले माया के साथ थे और अब कोई न कोई BJP सांसद या विधायक इनकी जेब में अवश्य ही होगा। इनके पास वकील की मोटी फीस देने को पैसा कहाँ से आ रहा है?! अंसल की पूरी सम्पत्ति अभी तक अधिग्रहण क्यों नहीं की गई?!
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 2112 OF 2016 1. RAHUL BHARGAVAJ-244, SAINIK FARMS, WESTERN AVENUE, LANE W/15.NEW DELHI-110062............Complainant(s)Versus 1. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 15-UGF, INDRAPRAKASH, 21-BARAKHAMBA ROAD.NEW DELHI-110001............Opp. Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sehgal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Kunal Kher, Advocate Mr. Tapas Tyagi, Advocate
Dated : 14 Jan 2019ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, (ORAL)
The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party, in a project which the opposite party was to develop in Village Nawada Fatehpur of Gurgaon, forming part of Sector 86. Pursuant to the said allotment, a Flat Buyers Agreement dated 11.10.2012 was executed between the parties. Clause 31 of the agreement pertains to the delivery of the possession and reads as under:-
“The Developer shall offer possession of the Unit any time, within a period of 42 months from the date of execution of Agreement or within 42 months from the date of obtaining all the required sanctions and approval necessary for commencement of construction, whichever is later subject to timely payment of all the dues by Buyer and subject to force-majeure circumstances as described in clause 32. Further, there shall be a grace period of 6 months allowed to the Developer over and above the period of 42 months as above in offering the possession of the Unit.”
2. The case of the complainant is that the possession should have been delivered to him by 10.4.2016, when 42 months from the date of the Flat Buyers Agreement expired. His grievance is that the possession was not offered to him despite he having already paid Rs.7280205.51 to the opposite party. The complainant is therefore before this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by him to the opposite party along with compensation etc.
3. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has inter alia stated in its written version that since they received the building plans approval and necessary sanction on 3.9.2013, the period of 42 months has to be calculated from that date only and having been filed in the year 2016, the complaint is premature.
4. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the opposite party that the requisite period of 12 months is required to be calculated from the date on which the building plans were approved. The said date according to the opposite party being 3.9.2013, the requisite period of 42 months expired on 3.3.2017. The grace period of six months consequently expired on 3.9.2017. The possession, therefore, ought to have been delivered at best by 3.9.2017. However, it will serve no purpose from returning the complaint as premature at this stage, since more than one year has already expired even from 3.9.2017, if the period of 48 months computed from 3.9.2013 expired. The next contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that they have applied for the requisite Occupancy certificate on 26.4.2017. However, no such plea has been taken in the written version which was filed by the opposite party in July 2017. Be that as it may, even if it is accepted that the opposite party had applied for the grant of the requisite Occupancy Certificate on 26.4.2017, as is stated by its counsel, the fact remains that admittedly the requisite Occupancy certificate has not been granted till date. Had the construction been complete in all respects and the construction been confirming to the applicable building bye-laws in all respects, the Occupancy Certificate would have been issued to it within the prescribed period, there being a deemed provision for the grant of the Occupancy certificate unless it is refused or an objection is raised within specified days from the date on which the Occupancy certificate is applied for. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the opposite party applied for the Occupancy certificate without completing the work and that is the reason the said Occupancy Certificate has not been issued till date. No evidence has been led by the opposite party to prove that there was no deficiency/deviation in the work, at the time they applied for the requisite Occupancy Certificate and there was no violation of any not building bye-laws on their part. As noted earlier, the opposite party did not even refer to its application for issuance of the Occupancy Certificate, in its written version which was filed much after the date on which it allegedly applied for such Occupancy Certificate.
Had that been, the complainant would have got an opportunity to plead and prove that the Occupancy Certificate has not been issued because of the deviations/deficiencies in the construction.
5. The opposite party has not placed on record the correspondence exchanged between it and the concerned authority with respect for the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate which was allegedly applied by it on 26.4.2017.
Had that correspondence been placed on record, it would have been possible for this Commission to know as to what precisely were the reason why the Occupancy Certificate is not being issued by the concerned authority despite the same having been applied for way back on 26.4.2017.
6. In these circumstances, when about 7 years from the date on which the complainant applied for the allotment of a flat have already expired and it is not known when the Occupancy Certificate will actually be issued to the opposite party, the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite time and he is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him to the opposite party along with the requisite compensation etc.
7. No evidence has been led by the complainant to prove the actual loss sustained by him on account of the opposite party having not delivered possession of the allotted flat to him. However, considering the rate of interest prevalent at the relevant time on the bank deposits, I am of the view that the complainant should be paid an all-inclusive compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
8. The learned counsel for the opposite party relies upon clause 5 of the Buyers Agreement and submits that the interest should be awarded @ 6% p.a. I, however, find myself unable to accept the contention. Clause 5 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party, reads as under:-
“That in case the developer increases number of floors as aforesaid the Buyer shall have no objection to the same. The Buyer hereby undertakes to tender all possible cooperation for such addition/alteration in the structure. In case of increase in the floor thereby resulting increase in saleable area, the developer shall review the relevant allied charges and if possible shall pass on the proportionate benefits if any to the Buyer. However, it is made clear that such change in the saleable area shall not make the Buyer entitled for claiming reduction in the basic sale price of the unit. If in case the Buyer is not agreeable to such variation and deviation as mentioned in the clause 3 and 4 he shall have the option to seek refund from the company with 6% p.a. simple interest.”
It is evident from a bare perusal of this clause that it would apply only where the developer increases the number of floors and the consequent change in saleable area is not acceptable to the flat buyer.
9.The learned counsel for the opposite party also relies upon clause 25 of the Buyers Agreement, which reads as under:-
“If payment of installation/other dues are not received within the stipulated period given in the opted payment plan and/or in the event of breach of any of the terms and conditions of the application and Agreement by the Buyer, the Allotment can be cancelled at the sole discretion of the Developer and the Developer shall be entitled to sell the said Unit at such price and on such terms and conditions to such other person or party (new Buyer) as the Developer may in its absolute discretion deem fit. The Developer shall refund the Buyer the amount paid by the Buyer towards the basic sale price in pursuance of this Agreement after receiving back the original documents from the Buyer and after compliance of necessary formalities by the Buyer but after deducting there from 20% of the basic sale price of the unit which constituted the earnest money. In case the unit is cancelled as above, the balance amount, if any, shall be refunded by Developer to the Buyer within 30 days after receiving original documents from the Buyer. Only if Developer delays in refunding the balance amount, if any, as above, the developer shall be liable to pay interest @ 5% PA on refund amount for the period starting from 30 days after receiving original documents from the Buyer till actual date of refund.
The above-referred clause is wholly inapplicable to a situation where the flat buyer is seeking compensation on account of the builder having failed to deliver possession of the allotted flat to him.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:-
The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.72,80,205.51 to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint.
The payment in term of this order shall be made within three months from today.
......................JV.K. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
This decision (NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 2112 OF 2016) spells that the authorities and builder are hand in glove. The builder charges interest at the rate of 18% from the consumer. The consumer suffer mental agony. He looses rent from this property for the affected period and pays rent else where. the decision must be challenged.[10.03.2021]
Let us file complaint with the Police commissioner, G.B.Nagar, DM G.B.Nagar, CM UP, PM and the Supreme Court of India. We have to prepare a set of 6 complaint. One copy will be preserved with the coordinator :- Mrs. Rishi Goyal, +917217778093.
To
The Police Commissioner,
G.B. Nagar, UP.
Subject :: FIR against the builder Ansal Sushant Lok Greater Noida (Bodaki) for cheating, misusing & diverting funds.
Sir,
I invested money in the Ansals with the following particulars.
(1). Name ::
(2). Current Postal Address ::
(3). Flat-house number booked ::
(4). Amount paid ::
(5). Date of booking ::
(6). Date of receiving possession ::
(7). Phone/mobile number ::
(8). email address ::
I have to lodge FIR and strict action against the builder. Please register complaint against the builder and help us recover our hard earned money with principle, interest & compensation. Ansals charged interest at the rate of 18% per annum compounded annually. Compensation is computed at the rental value to the flat, duplex I booked. In addition to this I have under gone mental torture & harassment at the hands of the builder for which at least Rs. 2 Lakh should be recovered from the builder. All his properties-assets (movable & immovable) should be sized and auctioned to recover our money. Their property Ansal Plaza at Greater Noida and their office in New Delhi should also be seized. A chunk of land is available with the builder at Bodaki, which too is supposed to seized. Their passports should be cancelled and bank accounts seized at once.
The builder has not paid salary to the employees for the past 7 years and yet they are sitting in the office negotiating dubious deals with the investors. So many other builders have joined hands with him. They have political clout as well. The SHO, Pari Chowk is unwilling to take any action against him.
The builder is manipulating RERA & consumer court order and dragging the legal battle.
Yours faithfully,
...........................
Copy to :: DM, G.B.Nagar, CM-UP, PM-India & the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India.
N.B. In addition to this copies will be forwarded to all media houses, twitter & face book.
If the authorities fail to take stern action against the builder, we will be compelled to launch agitation.
The Supreme Court rejected a petition against the builder says that the court will be flooded with such petitions. It clearly shows that the people are suffering and the government is sleeping along with the court. It can club all these petitions and act of its own. Where is the need for a lawyer when facts & figures are available?! Are the lawyers more learned & qualified than the judges!? The RERA 7 Consumer Courts have miserably failed to help the property buyers, who are paying interest and instalments without the hope of getting a house of their own.[01.03.2021]
A FRACTURED JUDGEMENT BY NCDR :: The Judgement do not consider the torture to the buyers and the rate of interest prevailing in 2008. No compensation has been allowed. It needs review. Ansals charged interest at the rate of 18%pa. They should have got interest at the rate of 20% compounded half yearly.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Jayachandran @ J.J.Chandru vs K.Jagan Mohan on 12 June, 2012
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
Section 2 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
Bhrigu Kaushik & 14 Ors. vs M/S. Ansal Hi Tech Township Ltd. on 16 October, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 1951 OF 2016 1. BHRIGU KAUSHIK & 14 ORS. S/o. Sh. S P Kaushik, R/o. 13/45, Sunder Vihar, Pachim Vihar, New Delhi - 110 087. 2. SOVAN CHATTERJEE S/o. Sh. Raghubir Chhatterjee,
R/o. B-180, 2nd Floor,
C.R. Park, New Delhi - 110 019 3. MOHD. AMMAD KHAN - 4. HARISH CHANDRA . 5. AMIT CHANDRA . 6. SMITA AGARWAL & RAVINDRA NATH AGARWAL . 7. USHA CHANDRA & HARISH CHANDRA . 8. ALKA DHINGRA . 9. DHARMENDRA KUMAR GAUR - 10. PREM NARAYAN SHUKLA - 11. MR. ANAND SHUKLA - 12. ALOK SHUKLA - 13. MANU BHARDWAJ - 14. COL. PREM PRAKASH RAJPUROHIT - 15. COL. PREM PRAKASH RAJPUROHIT - 16. COL. PREM PRAKASH RAJPUROHIT - 17. SUCHITRA SURI . 18. NEHA MISHRA . 19. PUSHP LATA . 20. ANIL KUMAR JHA . 21. ADITI RAINA . 22. SAROJ THAPAR . 23. MADHU MALIK . 24. VISHRAM SINGH . 25. VIJAY . 26. BABU KURIAKOSE . 27. PARTHA PRATIM BHATTACHARYA . 28. CHHANDITA ROY CHOUDHARY . 29. KRISHAN KUMAR PAHUJA . 30. RAKHI WADHWA . 31. GAURAV TANDON . 32. ARVIND KUMAR GAUR . 33. MANVI WAHI . 34. RATAN KUMAR VAISH . 35. ASTHA AGRAHARI VAISH . 36. . . 37. SANJAY PURI . ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. ANSAL HI TECH TOWNSHIP LTD. (Represented By Directors/Officer Concerned) Office At 115, Ansal Bhavan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. 2. Sh. Vinod Fotedar R/o. D-605, Satisar, Plot No. 6, Sector-7, Dawarka, New Delhi- 110 075. 3. Ashok Advani S/o. Sh. Lt. Vehromal Advani, R/o. 39/24, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi -110060. 4. Sh. Parveen Kumar Sardana R/o. 3/43, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi - 110 060. 5. Prateek Tanwar R/o. WZ-300, Naraina, New Delhi -110028. 6. Sh. Sunny Kumar R/o. 371, Pardhan Marg, Nirankari Colony, New Delhi -110009 7. Sh. Raj K Gulati, W/o. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gulati, R/o. 1-B/18, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi -110015. 8. Sh. Mohan Prakash Sharma S/o. Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, R/o. IC-31, Near Dhauli Pyau, Chandan Van, Phase - I, Mathura U.P. 281001 9. Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta R/o. House No. C-2319, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon Haryana-122009. 10. Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o. Sh. Omkar Nath, R/o. 674 Pocket-1, Pachim Puri, New Delhi - 110063. 11. Smt. Geeta Gogia, R/o. 4/57, First Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi - 110060. 12. Sh. Yatender Singh Yadav, R/o. 109/85B, Nehru Nagar, kanpur U.P. 208012. 13. Sh. Kunal Upadhyay R/o. RZ-27-B/335, Jagdamba Vihar West Sagar Pur, New Delhi - 110 046. 14. Sh. Gaurav Kumar Tyagi R/o. B-400, Patelnagar-II, Ghaziabad U.P. 201 001. 15. Ms. Divya Jain R/o. 52 8th B Main Koramangala, 4th C Block, Bangalore - 560034. 16. KAMAL GUPTA - ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate
Mr. Nithin Chandran, Advocate
Ms. Sumbul, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
Dated : 16 Oct 2020 ORDER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
An entity by the name 'Uttam Steel & Associates' (hereinafter referred to as 'Consortium/Developer Company) was selected by Government of Uttar Pradesh for development of a township namely 'Sushant-Megapolis' comprising of plots, flats etc. in Greater Noida. The Consortium members formed an SPV under the name & style of 'Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd.' which is the OP in this complaint. The detailed project report for the township was approved on 08.02.2008 and detailed lay-out plans were also approved by the Nodal Agency pursuant to which, a development agreement was signed between the Nodal Agency and the Consortium/Developer Company. The OP invited applications inter-alia for allotment of plots in the proposed township. A large number of persons including the complainants herein, booked residential plots in the above referred project and executed agreements with the OP. No time frame for delivering possession of the plots to the allottees was incorporated in the agreements but the case of the complainants is that verbally they were told that the possession would be handed over within 36 months from the execution of the agreement. The allotments of plots were made and agreements in respect thereto, were executed between 2008 and 2014. The case of the complainants is that the township has not been developed by the OP and the possession has not been offered to them as well as other similarly situated allottees. The complainants therefore, approached this Commission by way of a class section u/s 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of the amount paid by the aforesaid allottees to the OP along with compensation etc. Vide order dated 19.09.2017, this Commission granted permission in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act to the complainants to institute this complaint on behalf of all such allottees who wanted refund of the amount paid to the OP. Pursuant to the grant of permission, public notice in two newspapers, circulated in Delhi/NCR were published and several allottees were permitted to join this complaint.
2. The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has taken a preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation. On merits, the defence of the OP is contained in the affidavit dated 05.03.2020 filed by Mr. F.N. Rai, Authorized Representative of the company. In nutshell, the following are the grounds taken in the said affidavit:(a) Due to protest by farmers who were dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in land acquisition cases, they were unable to acquire the land and develop it as per approved DRP.
(b) As per the agreement between the parties, the lay-out plan design could be changed and modified and the location of the plot allotted to a person could be changed due to unavoidable circumstances. In such a case, the allottee was required to accept equivalent alternative arrangement made by the developer.
(c) All the fourteen original complainants have settled the matter with the OP.
(d) The OP is also in the process of settling with the other allottees who have subsequently been impleaded in this complaint.
(e) There were some land parcels in between the project which the developer had not purchased and which were required to be acquired by the Government.
(f) There was no inordinate delay in the project and complainant no.1 had made multiple bookings. It is also alleged that the project was delayed due to Court orders and farmers' agitation. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the National Green Tribunal on 21.08.2013 and 12.09.2017 in O.A. No. 121 of 2013.
(g) The land owners had not sold their land to the OP despite 56 of them having agreed to do so at a particular rate.
3. As far as the preliminary objection is concerned, the OP having not completed the development and having not offered possession of the allotted plots to the allottees, they had a recurrent cause of action to file the Consumer Complaint. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation.
4. As regards the change in the location of the plots, it would be noted from the agreement executed between the parties that the location could be changed due to unavoidable reasons. No unavoidable reasons for change of the location have been disclosed in the written version filed by the OP. More importantly, the written version does not even disclose as to who were the persons location of whose plots was changed, when the said change happened, whether any alternative plots were offered, and if so, to how many of them. It is also not disclosed what was the location of the alternative plot if any, offered by the OP and what was the price at which the alternative plots were offered. In the absence of such particulars, the plea taken in this regard remains ambiguous and wholly unsubstantiated. In any case, the change in the location, as noted earlier, could have happened due to unavoidable reasons and such change in my opinion, could have been made only within a reasonable time of the approval of the lay-out plans. It would also be pertinent to note that the lay-out plans had already been approved by the time the agreements were executed with the allottees and this was specifically recorded in the said agreements.
5. As regards the alleged delay on account of protest by the farmers, the learned counsel for the complainants have drawn my attention to a letter dated 22.07.2011 sent by the OP to the allottees of the above referred project. The said letter, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
Due to recent adverse publicity in the Media regarding various development works taken up by some builders in 'Noida Extension, Greater Noida, Yamuna Express-way Township and other areas, we felt necessary to communicate with you and explain the status of our township of which you are" a privileged allottees. You are aware that in Sushant - Megapolis we have purchased lands on market rates with the consent of the land owners and farmers and there is no dispute on the lands in your project whatsoever. This is not the case off compulsory acquisition and our project is not affected by the recent rulings given by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as well as by Supreme Court of India. Your project is rather now the most liked system of developments and persons adversely affected by the recent decisions of the Courts are approaching us in larger numbers for finding place in our area free from legal complexities and controversies.
Due to above development, demand of plots & houses in our township has further increased resulting in increase in market prices.
It is evident from the aforesaid communication sent by none other than the OP that there was no dispute with the farmers as far as the land comprised in the project namely 'Megapolis' was concerned, the said land having been purchased by the complainant on market rate with the consent of the land owners, this not being a case of compulsory acquisition of land by the State Government. The above referred letter belies the plea taken by the OP in its affidavit.
6. It appears from a perusal of the agreement executed between the parties that the project proposed to be developed by the OP was a large project spread over more than 2500 acres of land and that the bulk of the land was purchased by the OP directly from the farmers. There could be some patches of land in between which required acquisition by the State Government in case the complainant was not able to purchase them directly from the land owners. The OP having advertised the project and having executed the agreements for development and sale of plots, it was for them to purchase those small patches of land from the land owners at a negotiated price even if they had to pay a price higher than the price they were willing to pay. Alternative, it was for them to ensure that those parcels of land were compulsorily acquired by the Government. In any case, there is no evidence on record to prove that the residential plots allotted by the OP could not have been developed on the land which the OP had directly purchased from the land owners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the non-acquisition of such small parcels of land had delayed the project.
Even if the plea taken by the OP with respect to non-acquisition of those small parcels of land is accepted on its face value, the allottees cannot be made to suffer for the inability of the OP to acquire those land parcels. They having made substantial payment to the OP and having waited for many years, cannot be compelled to wait for an indefinite period till the OP is able to complete the project and is able to offer possession of the allotted plots to them. This is more so when the sale of the plots started way back in the year 2008 and twelve years have since expired but it is not known whether the OP will at all be able to complete the development work and if so, when the said development work would be completed.
7. The OP has, in its affidavit, placed reliance upon the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal to justify the delay in development of the project. There is a reference to the orders dated 21.08.2013 and 12.09.2017 passed by National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.121 of 2013 which is Ex-OP/2. The order passed by the National Green Tribunal on 21.08.2013, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
1. We hereby restrain Respondent No.3, 6 & 7 from raising any construction or reclaiming any land or in any way interfering with the wetlands as well as its catchment area.
2. They shall not carry on all the above activities within 500 mtrs from the periphery of highest water level in wetland.
The above referred order, according to the learned counsel for the OP, was vacated on 12.09.2017 with a finding that the land of this project was not a wet land. It is evident from the order itself that it pertained only to the wet land and catchment area. The case of the OP was that the land of this project did not form part of the catchment area nor was it a wet land. Therefore, the interim order passed by the National Green Tribunal did not prevent the OP from continuing with the development work. More importantly, more than three years have already passed since the interim order was vacated by National Green Tribunal, but the development work has not been completed till date. Therefore, the above referred orders of the National Green Tribunal do not justify the abnormal delay on the part of the OP in completing the development.
As regards the OP having settled with the original complainants, that in my opinion, would not be material in a class action and such an action cannot be closed or dismissed merely because the developer settles with the allottees who had initiated the class action. If such a course of action is allowed, it would result in a situation where the builder may settle the matter with those who invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission by way of a class action and may jeopardize the case of those who have subsequently joined the complaint or who do not join the complaint considering that the order in the class action would be for the benefit of all the members of the class including those who do not join the class action. The learned counsel for the complainant states that they have also settled with eleven allottees other than the original complainants and they are in negotiations with thirteen other allottees. Even if this is so, that would not lead to the dismissal of the class action. Once the jurisdiction of this Commission by way of a class action is invoked, the Commission is required to take the matter to its logical conclusion unless the matter is settled with each and every member of the class. This is not the case of the OP that it has settled with each and every allottee of a residential plot in this project.
Though no specific time period for completing the development and offering possession to the allottees was indicated in the agreement, that would not entitle the builder to prolong the development work to an indefinite period. In such a case, the development work must necessarily be completed within a reasonable time period. As far as the development of plots is concerned, such a work does not require as much time as required for construction of group housing flats in multi-storeyed buildings. At best, the development work of the plots, even on a large scale, must be completed within a period of three years from the approval of the lay-out plans. As noted earlier, in this case, the lay-out plans had been approved even before the agreements with the OP were executed.
8. A reference can appropriately be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan & Connected Matter (2019) 5 SCC 725 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC).
In Devasis Rudra (supra), the possession was offered to the complainant/appellant during the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission and it was contended that the said builder having made substantial investment in terms of the agreement, a direction for refund was not warranted. In the Consumer Complaint filed in Devasis Rudra (supra), the complainant/appellant had prayed for possession of the house and in the alternative, for refund of the amount paid by him to the developer. In view of the said prayer made in the Consumer Complaint, it was argued on behalf of the builder that he should be made to accept possession of the allotted house and refund and not be allowed to him. The complainant, on the other hand, contended that at the time the Consumer Complaint was filed, he was ready and willing to accept the possession, but seven years having elapsed, he was not more willing to accept possession. Allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:
"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund."
In the present case, the possession is not offered till today to all the allottee and the development is still not complete.
In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), the builder submitted before this Commission itself that since the construction of the apartment was complete and Occupancy Certificate had been obtained, the flat purchaser must be directed to accept the possession instead of directing refund of the amount deposited. In that case, there was a delay of about three years in offering possession and the flat purchaser had submitted that he was not interested in taking possession after delay of about three years. He also stated that he had taken an alternative property in Gurgaon. This Commission having allowed refund to the complainant/respondent, the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia contended that as per the terms of the agreement executed between the parties, the flat purchaser could claim refund only after expiry of twelve months from the grace period by terminating the agreement but the Consumer Complaint had been filed even before the said twelve months period after the grace period had come to an end. It was also submitted on behalf of the builder that this Commission had erred in granting interest at the rate of 10.7% per annum to the complainant when the agreement between the parties provided for payment of interest @ 6% per annum in case of delay in handing over possession. Rejecting the contentions advanced by the builder, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:
6.1. In the present case, admittedly the Appellant - Builder obtained the Occupancy Certificate almost 2 years after the date stipulated in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. As a consequence, there was a failure to hand over possession of the flat to the Respondent - Flat Purchaser within a reasonable period. The Occupancy Certificate was obtained after a delay of more than 2 years on 28.08.2018 during the pendency of the proceedings before the National Commission.
In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta,2 this Court held that when a person hires the services of a builder, or a contractor, for the construction of a house or a flat, and the same is for a consideration, it is a "service" as defined by Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service.
In Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. v. Trevor D'Lima & Ors., 3 this Court held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation.
6.2. The Respondent - Flat Purchaser has made out a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the Appellant - Builder. The Respondent - Flat Purchaser was justified in terminating the Apartment Buyer's Agreement by filing the Consumer Complaint, and cannot be compelled to accept the possession whenever it is offered by the Builder. The Respondent - Purchaser was legally entitled to seek refund of the money deposited by him along with appropriate compensation.
9. As noted earlier, in this case development of all the plots is not complete even in 12 years. The learned counsel for the OP submits that they had to revise the lay-out plan 2-3 times which had contributed to the delay in possession of the plot. Such a plea does not find mention in the affidavit filed by the OP and in any case, it is too vague even to be considered since neither the reasons for the revision of the lay-out plans have been stated nor has it been informed as to how much was the delay which happened on account of revision of the lay-out plans.
10. The learned counsel for the OP also states that the complainants have not discharged the onus of proving as to in which project allotments were made to them. The Consumer Complaint pertains to the allotments made in the project namely 'Sushant Megapolis' and therefore, it is obvious that the scope of this complaint is spread over to the allotments in the project namely 'Sushant Megapolis', where refund is sought.
11. For the reasons stated hereinabove , I hold that the allottees of residential plot in the project namely 'Sushant Megapolis' cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the plots allotted to them and they are entitled to refund of the amount which they paid to the OP along with appropriate compensation etc.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the complainants/allottees fairly submit that considering the recent erosion in interest rates and the financial difficulties created by the pandemic, they would press for refund of the principal amount paid by the allottees to the OP along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
13. The complaint is disposed of with the following directions:
(i). The order passed in this complaint is limited to such allottees of residential plots in the project namely 'Sushant Megapolis' who do not want to wait any more for possession of the residential plots allotted to them by the OP and want refund of the amount paid by them to the OP along with appropriate compensation etc.
(ii) The OP shall refund the entire principal amount received from the allottees referred in direction (i) above to the concerned allottees along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
(iii) The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants collectively.
(iv) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER
RERA needs teeth. Let the properties of ANSAL & all other builders, who failed to deliver houses, be attached, confiscated & auctioned to recover investor's dues. Their passports should be confiscated and travel banned. Their bank accounts should be seized. UPRERA Complaint No. NCR144/08/1793/2019 [16.09.202]
Gautom Buddh Nagar district consumer forum has directed the builder to refund the amount deposited by the allottees (Kanika Tugnayat & Sachin Tugnayat) along with 18% interest in addition to the rent paid by them for 5 years, during which he was denied possession of the flat. The complainant had booked the flat at Sushant Megapolis Project of the Ansals. The bench was headed by Shri R.B. Sharma (President) & Nirmala Singh is a member of the forum.[27.09.2019]
The National Consumer Commission has ordered a builder to pay a compensation of Rs.47.6 Lakh to a Navi Mumbai man in lieu of the Rs.8.2 Lakh that he had paid for a 1000 sq.m. flat 25 years ago. Full report www.toi.in [30.08.2020]
The supreme Court has upheld the validity of of an amendment to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) giving the right to take legal action-recourse against developers under three key laws. The Court has said that the Real Estate Regulation & Development Act or RERA has to be read as harmoniously with the consumer Protection Act & in case of any conflict IBC will prevail. The buyers will be treated at par with the banks and institutional creditors.[11.8.2019]
***1 Ansal API has been fined Rs. one crore for transferring funds fraudulently, @ Rs. 600 crore of the investors by RERA, in Greater Noida, G.B.Nagar UP.[25.06.2019]
I booked a house No. S/102 in Daffodil-Blooms in SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS, adjoining Greater Noida-Bodaki in Utter Pradesh on 23.03.2012 with the initial deposit of Rs.5,90,891 (Five Lakh, ninety thousand and eight hundred ninety one) in its office at Pari Chowk, Greater Noida. Till 26.11.2012, I deposited Rs.35,85,636 (Thirty five Lakh, eighty five thousand and six hundred thirty six). The duplex house measuring 313 square meters with covered area of 361.75 sq.m. had to be handed over in 2014. The builder has neither handed over the house to me nor it intends to refund the deposit. All emails and the registered letters remain unanswered. No one attends the phone calls. On meeting personally an employee answered that the finances of the company were strained.
***2 I have neither got the house nor my money. Kindly help me obtain refund with interest and compensation. I invested all my pension funds in it.
FORFEITING DEPOSIT & ONE SIDED HARSH CLAUSES IN AGREEMENT :: The apex consumer commission-The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has held that a home buyer can not be forced to forfeit any amount deposited with a builder. In case he seeks the cancellation of allotment of flat for delayed construction. The real estate major Super tech has been directed to refund the entire amount of over one crore to the buyer for delay of two years. The court has held that real estate companies cannot invoke harsh clauses in cases where the buyers are forced to seek cancellation due to inordinate delay of any project. The company had forfeited 15% of the cost of the unit in a Noida housing project. The commission passed the order in favour of the complainant Chandan Gupta who had booked a flat in Supertech's project ORB Towers in Sector 74 of Noida. The builder has to make the refund with 10% interest within 3 months. [04.06.2019]
REFUND OF DEPOSIT :: The apex consumer commission-The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has quantified a time period of one year for delayed projects beyond which investors can seek refund from the builders. Judicial forums including the Supreme Court & Consumer Courts have repeatedly held that home buyers can not be made to wait indefinitely. The court passed the order in a case filed by Delhi resident Shalabh Nigam, who bought a luxury flat in 2012 from Orris infrastructures & 3C in Greenpolis, Gurgaon. The court ordered to handover the flat by September 2019 obtaining occupation certificate. If the builders fails to hand over the flat he would pay 10% interest on the entire amount along with the deposit.[17.05.2019]
The Supreme Court has upheld orders of a state consumer commission and the national commission to refund payment with interest to a home buyer for over seven years possession of the flat he had booked with a Kolkata based builder. The irony is that (1). the court did not consider the harassment meted out to the buyer, (2). cost escalation the buyer has to pay after seven years of wait for a new flat to be booked by him. (3). The buyer could have saved the rent paid by him for the flat he had rented.[01.04.2019]
***SIGNING OF CONTRACTS :: The Supreme Court has said that one sided and unfair contracts with stringent clauses against the home buyers will not be binding if it shows that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line of a contract framed by the builder. The Ansals did that in their ANSAL API SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS GREATER NOIDA, where contracts were brought forward after a gap of more than 2 years, with the clause of cost escalation which is grossly against the purchasers. Ansals were supposed to hand over the houses in 2014, but nothing has been done till date. They neither handover the house nor refund the money. They do not respond to telephone calls, emails and even registered letters sent to their head office in Delhi or greater Noida.[04.04.2019]
TDS ON HIGH VALUE RENT :: A tenant paying rent of over Rs. 50,000 per month has to deduct 5% as TDS. The existing section 194-1 of the Income Tax Act asks the tenant to deduct TDS at the time of credit or payment of rent to the account of the home owner-beneficiary and to deposit tax if it is beyond Rs.1.80 Lakh. Rent means payment under lease, sub lease, tenancy or any other agreement for the use of land, building or both. The TDS deducted by the tenant can be deposited once a year for the full financial year. This provision comes into effect from June 1,2017. The tenant deducting the tax is not required to obtain a tax deduction account number (TIN). He has to deposit it with the income tax department, within a specified time frame.[04.03.2017]
PENALTY ON UNI-TECH :: (1). Supreme Court has slapped a penalty 14 per cent interest on Rs. 16.55 crore invested by 39 home buyers in Uni-tech Resorts; for delaying of handing over of flats, in Uni-tech’s Vista housing project in Guru Gram. They had sought a refund of their principal amount, after the developer, which had promised to give the possession by 2012, delayed it. The interest will be calculated by the developer from January 1, 2010 and asked the real estate major to deposit the amount with the apex court registry, within eight weeks.
(2).The Supreme Court has held that the flat owners can join hands to directly approach the National Consumer Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against builders. The bar of Rs. 1 crore has been lifted.[22.02.2017]
PAYMENT OF RENT TO THE BUYER FOR NOT HANDING OVER POSSESSION OF HOUSE :: The builder is bound to pay rent to those who did not get possession of the flat-built up house within the notified period. The builder's argument that there was no agreement towards payment of rent, was considered to be deficiency of service on the part of the builder. As a matter of fact the builders do not insert the clause towards refund and payment of interest; in case of refund. The agreement is always one sided and loaded with clauses favourable to the builder only. The builder always try to prolong the legal battle just to harass the person who booked flat with him. The verdict is that if the builder has not delivered the flat even after 3 years, he will pay Rs. 2,500 per day and Rs one Lakh as compensation; in addition to monthly rent to the person who had booked the flat with him.[06.02.2017]
COMPENSATION :: I could easily earn Rs. 80,000 to Rs.1,50,000 as rent, depending upon the tenant. Families are willing to pay Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000 each floor. Institutional tenants like doctors or lawyers are willing to Rs.1,50,000 for the ground floor. My house having 3 floors, is located in sector-19 of Noida. Sector-19 is centrally located with all facilities like post office, markets, hospital, banks, Metro & DTC bus service, within a radius of one km.
Sushant High-tech Town Ship is now a place in great demand due to (1). Ludhiana-Mumbai fright corridor, (2). Peripheral express way, (3). Jewar airport, (4). proposed 2 Metro links with Delhi airport & New Delhi railway station. (5). Proposed High speed train link to Banaras. (6). Metro Link with Noida, (7). Greater Noida's development as an industrial cum residential town ship. (8). Connectivity with the Delhi Kolkata high way-grand Trunk Road.
ANSAL API SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS GREATER NOIDA :: Ansals are the people who owned UPHAAR CINEMA in Green Park-Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi and were held guilty of the deaths, due to carelessness. In response to their advertisement a duplex house was booked. It had been clearly stated that the house would be handed over in 2014. More than Rs.28 Lakh has been paid to them and still there is no chance of getting the house. No clear reply-satisfactory is given on meeting personally, phone called are not responded & emails are not replied.
The moment this house was booked, inquiry was made with respect to a plot for school. The employee handling the matter said that a school plot measuring 4 acre would be available for Rs. 3 crore and payment had to be made in instalments spreaded over 10 years. One was willing to pay initial instalment. But the official suggested that it would be proper if a society was registered in charitable act for the purpose for the allotment of the school plot. It was followed and the office was visited with the documents. Now some one else had occupied the office. He asked for Rs.10 crore for a 2 acre plot for which the instalment were to be paid in 3 years. Whole matter was explained to him. But he insisted that the person who negotiated earlier must have been a property dealer.
Previous week saw the assembly of investors-home buyers at Ansal-Api Sushant Lok's office at Greater Noida, near Pari Chauk. They took a buffalo with them and played music in front of her. उन्होंने भैंस के आगे बीन बजाई। (To cast pearls before swine). This week a letter has been received from them asking to choose alternate accommodation in Meerut, Lucknow, Agra, NH 24, Greater Noida. They have cited a dispute with the villagers for which they have won the case in High Court. They are asking to contact Dushyant Tomar Mobile No. 09999378900 and Anil Dagar Mobile no. 09811858606.
Yet another development saw the Chairman of Ansals group meeting Greater Noida Authority and railways for the construction of 105 meter road connecting Pari Chauk to Bodaki and then up to GT Road, through a railway over bridge, which will be financed by Ansals, railways and greater Noida Authority. This road may further be connected to Hapur Moradabad road. With a view to the development in the periphery of Bodaki, its unwise to shift to some other place.[22.05.2016]
The chief judicial magistrate of G.B.Nagar has registered a case under section 156(3) against Ansal Builders and 9 employees of Noida-Greater Noida. Some of these personnel are co-accused in some other scandals, involving fraudulent deals, worth more than Rs.1,000 crore, as well.[29.05.2016]
Land consolidation (चकबंदी) of villages Ram Garh, Bodaki & Chamravali remain cancelled. The Allahabad High Court has refused to intervene in this matter. However, the villagers of Ram Garh considers the consolidation of their land to be proper-genuine. A case has been filed against 9 officers and the owner of Ansal Builders Shushil Ansal. This is a case of criminal conspiracy, forgery & cheating. Ansal builders got license to build high tech city in 2,006, resulting in land consolidation in just a matter of few days. Two orders have been cited with of gap of 10 years, but signed by the same pen, ink and hand writing, in back dates. Its alleged that around 300 Bighas (one Bigha = 1,000 square yards in UP) of land has been misappropriated. The farmers-villagers alleged that the consolidated land was never handed over to them, i.e., physical possession was not given to them. Ansals came out with a residential colony them over the land in question and collected trillions of rupees from the investors. The houses which were supposed to be handed over to the buyers in 2014 are still not ready. Even digging of foundation has not begun, yet. The builder say that a railway over bridge will be constructed through sector 5 of their scheme connecting Pari Chauk in Greater Noida (ग्रेटर नॉएडा में परी चौक) with the GT road. The repeat that nothing is going to happen before 2017. But nothing fruitful appears so far. No mails or phone calls are entertained.[20.03.2016]
Pranav Ansal Vice Chairman of Ansal API was arrested from the Palam airport (IGI) when he was about to flee to London. He had multiple FIRs against him. His father Sushil Ansal-Chairman, is also a co-accused under various sections like cheating fraud etc.[30.09.2019]
UP-RERA has said that a buyer can seek refund if the builder misses deadline. The builder has to pay fine ranging from Rs.1,000 per day to Rs.10,000 per day to be paid to the government. Builders have to disclose their full assets in next 10 days to RERA.[22.08.2020]
UP-RERA recovered Rs. 15 crore from 4 defaulter Noida builders against whom 44 recovery certificates worth 18 crore were pending.[21.08.2020]
UP-RERA issued 174 recovery certificates against 5 developers in Greater Noida and fixed dead line for handing over 1375 flats.[19.08.2020]
UP-RERA's greater Noida bench will meet around 20 builders from Noida & Ghaziabad one-on-one basis to process recovery certificates and seek refunds for home buyers this week. The regulator will be issuing the certificates under section 63 of the UP-RERA Act 2016, which pertains to failure of compliance with its orders. If processed, they could amount to Rs.500 crore.[18.08.2020]
UP-RERA Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has ordered development Authorities in the state to furnish property details of all defaulting developers in their jurisdictions within 15 days. These will be passed on to the concerned district magistrates who can auction the properties to recover home buyer's money from defaulting builders against whom recovery certificates have been issued.[16.08.2020]
RERA-REAL ESTATE REGULATION ACT 2016 :: The act will be implemented on May 1, 2017. The penalty clause is notified in UP. The developer would be forced to pay interest at the base rate for a home loan given by the State Bank of India presently at 8%.[11.02.2017]
On Monday the government notified the rules to implement the real Estate regulation Act (RERA), which will enable the existing and present-current buyers to secure interest @ 10.9% per annum for delayed period of possession. In case a buyers is seeking refund, he will be entitled for interest for the whole period on the entire investment. The builder will have to make the refund in 45 days. This will also come out as a major relief to those buyers who had to shell out upwards of 15% for delayed period. The buyers had been facing turmoil at the hands of the builders; paying house rent and the instalments to the builders along with interest to the finance companies. List of sufferers is long. Some of them have committed suicide and some were planning to do so, facing unrest in domestic life due to this reason.[01.11.2016]
RERA 3rd BENCH IN NOIDA :: At least 25 complaints are registered daily and 100-150 cases are picked up for hearing everyday. Until now regulatory body has received 7,999 complaints and disposed off 4,232. 4,800 complaints from across NCR are yet to be heard. On April UP-RERA had rejected applications by 36 commercial and residential projects for failing to meet perquisite norms. On scrutiny several documents were found missing.[20.04.2019]
RERA ORDERS BUILDERS NOT TO DIVERT 70% OF BUYERS FUNDS FOR REPAYING LOANS :: Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority & UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority has ordered the builders not use the buyers 70% of the funds for repaying loans taken from banks & financial Institutions. This money has to go the another escrow account. The builder cannot create lien over the project.[25.04.2019]
REAL ESTATE BILL BECOMES A LAW :: The bill passed by the government will certainly put a control over the nefarious designs of the unruly builders. At present more than 70,000 flats are lying vacant due to the apathy of the government and non availability of basis facilities like water, electricity and transport. [12.03.2016]
The government must confiscate the property, pass ports and holdings of defaulters-fraudster builders like Ansals, Jaypee, Their bank accounts and lockers should be sealed at once. They should not be allowed air travel till every thing is settled. Both of them were favourites of Maya-Mulayam Raj. millions are suffering due to these people. They deserve to be treated like Vijay Mallya, Lalit Modi and Subrato Rai.[23.08.2017]
Rs. 630 crore penalty over DLF for duping home buyers with false promises :: The Supreme Court had directed India's real estate major to pay a fine of Rs 630 crore for exploiting its dominant position to the disadvantage of its customers in three projects in Gurgaon.
Supreme Court orders Parshv Nath to refund Rs 22 crore to 70 home buyers in its Exotica project at Ghaziabad for a delay in giving possession of the apartments. [Oct 19, 2016]
After Lalit Modi and Vijay Mallya, the AVJ group managing director too had fled India to Dubai. Two FIR's have been filed against him so far. It clearly speaks volumes about the fraudulent officials of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. There are several projects which were allowed to be completed by making numerous changes from increasing the height from 10 to 27 floors. The authority allowed the work to proceed without recovering cost of land. The possession was handed over without completion certificate and other clearances.[25.09.2016]
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Parshv Nath Developers to deposit Rs.12 crore with the court’s registry in four weeks. The court’s order comes in a case where the real estate developer appealed against a consumer forum ruling on compensating home buyers who were not delivered their flats yet. The company’s Exotica project in Ghaziabad hit a roadblock after the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) quashed a revised plan of construction. The court has asked the allottes whether they would like to be compensated with interest and the house rent for the delayed period.[17.09.2016]
Supreme Court has asked Super Tech to refund the money collected from the home buyers. The court had to become harsh with the company, since it had been seeking excuses under phoney reasons. This is the third company which has come under judicial review. The builders are earning super normal profits and still say that they are incurring losses. There are fly by night builders as well. In Noida west most of the projects had the permission to construct 10 stories only but then suddenly the height was increased to 17 which settled at 27 ultimately. How did they got the permission and from whom?! The foundation and the structure was erected for 10 floors-stories only. How will it survive with 27 floors stories?!
Emmar MGF :: Emmar MGF and 13 of its top ranking official have been booked on Wednesday for criminal breach of trust (IPC section 406) and cheating (IPC section 420) the home buyers. The company collected over Rs. 1000 crore from buyers and invested else where. The buyers have been deprived possession in their homes in Emerald Hills Township, an upscale project in sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.[09.06.2016]
DLF :: The apex consumer court (NCDRC) has asked it to hand over possessions to 50 allottees in DLF Valley project Panchkula. The builder has been directed to hand over the houses by November, 2016, otherwise the company will have to pay Rs.5,000 per day to the buyers. The company will pay 12% interest on the deposits made by the allottees per annum from the date of expiry i.e., 3 years from the date of allotment letters. It has ordered a compensation of Rs. 30,000 to each allottee. The project was launched in 2,010 with 1,153 residential plots. This is the same company which is involved in controversy along with Vadra in Haryana.[08.06.2016]
UNI TECH :: The National Consumer Disputes Redress Commission (NCDRC) has ordered the Uni tech to to refund Rs. 65.36 Lakh with 18% interest to Chhabra who booked the house in Jan. 2006 in greater Noida. The Uni tech promised to hand over the flat in 36 months. It will pay Rs. 50,00 as costs and if this is no cleared within 3 months an interest @ 9% will have to be paid. The builders collect the money from the buyers and invest it else where making a huge saving over the interest which is 2% to 10% per month depending upon the need of the borrower. They live in palatial houses like lords at the expense of the buyers.[13.05.2016]
SHATTERING DREAMS :: Around 900 buyers of Jaypee's wish town & other projects in Noida blocked the Noida expressway for 45 minutes. They shouted slogans and broke the barricade to the office of the reality firm. Police was called to control the crowd. The firm had collected around 90% of the cost from the buyers. The projects are being delayed, since 2008. Jaypee group has lost its goodwill and reputation. Its under a debt of more than Rs. 35,000 crore as per their own admission. However the loans are more than double of this figure. The company has diverted the funds else where, putting the buyers to tremendous pressure and financial constraints.[13.06.2016]
The honourable Supreme Court of India has taken control of all cases pending against Jaypee group.[07.08.2020.
The government should confiscate all their assets to repay the home seekers. The company has more funds than Sahara to return. They have trillions in their lockers and abroad banks-offshore. The government should confiscate their passports and ban their travel by air, stay in hotels, till the recovery of all dues payable to the banks and the public. All directors should be arrested immediately. [15.08.2017]
More than 30,000 home-buyers got a major relief from the Supreme Court as it stayed the insolvency proceedings against real estate firm Jaypee infra tech, a unit of JA-Jaypee Associates. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad had passed an order for insolvency proceedings against Jaypee infra tech at the instance of its financier IDBI. The Supreme Court also issued notice to embattled firm and others on a plea filed by home buyers, who have not yet received possession of their dream flats booked with the company. This is a company which gave jobs to blood relations and relatives and rode the roads to success and attained 10th position among the Indian industries, then it slipped to 32nd position and now its no where. Its burdened with a loan of 80,000 crore rupees. The company is grossly mismanaged and lack professionalism. The second generation directors are imprudent and lack talent. The directors have personal assets, many times more than the loans over the company. Most of them are corrupt.
The Hon. Supreme Court has asked Jaypee to deposit Rs. 2,000 crore with the court. It has asked the firm to pay Rs. 5 Lakh each to 10 buyers, as compensation. There is more trouble in line for Jaypee. The Court should act tough with Jaypee and Ansals, who too are acting on the same lines. The court should take more swear action against these firms, more tough than it took against Sahara's Subrato Rai.[14.09.2017]
In a big relief to more than 25,000 Jaypee flat buyers, the Supreme Court has ruled that they can approach consumer court against the parent company JAL-Jaypee associates Limited, for the recovery of their money or possession of their flats. The court refused to stay the proceedings against it on a batch of petitions by home buyers in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).[18.04.2019]
OM KRISHANA DEVELOPERS-DELHI-NEEM RANA :: More than 500 people assembled and demonstrated at the residence of this crooked property dealer to have their money. His appetite is never satisfied. He is in league with the officials and the police, who are continuously protecting him.[30.07.2015]
(I) Mr. Prem Shankar Gupta Mobile Numbers: +919582226871 & +91 9711099665 and his accomplice/partner/Manager Mr. Bajaj Mobile numbers: +917428553074 & +91 9711099662; either keep their mobile number closed or wilfully-notoriously deny answering the caller-refund seekers. They give one date after another and often ask the refund seekers to come to their offices in Delhi, Dehra Dun, Haridwar etc. and keep them waiting for hours, before they return empty handed. They have flouted a number of companies and have collected billions fraudulently from ignorant home seekers. They are operating by the name of Shivalik India Ltd. through their office in Pitam Pura, Delhi & Paradise Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Sohna road, Gurgaon. Other Companies of these Promoters: –
1. OKD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
2. Gee Next Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
3. Shivalick India Ltd.
4. USP Developers Pvt. Ltd.
5. Grand Sapphire Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
(II) Filing complaint and FIR in Economic Offence Wing (EOW) against Builder/Real Estate Developer
Economic Offence Wing (EOW) is in Qutub Institutional Area. Complaints with request for filing FIR has to be written in plain paper. Complaints to be mentioned clearly and supporting documents justifying those complaints have to be attached. It has to be addressed to:
The DCP,
Economic Offence Wing,
Delhi Police,
Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
Also, more the number of complaints, more is the probability of some action being taken. I suggest at least 30 people submit their complaints.
In case you don't get any response within 30 days, you can file a RTI to know the status.
User avatar: dheerajjain.
(III) OKD Group, H-10/103, Express Arcade, Opp. Fun Cinema, Neta Ji Subhash Place, Delhi, India- 110034.
Customer Care Phone Numbers and Contacts, Phone:+91 11 4705 7761, +91 11 4705 7762, +91 11 4705 7763, Mobile:+91 11 4705 7762, www.okdgroup.in
Om Krishna Developers Private Limited, Real Estate Builders & Developers PH. (011) 27682799 9213306557 103, Nikita Tower-1, Azad Pur, Delhi- 110033.
Om Krishna Developers - Don't invest or deal with OKD (Om Krishna Developer).
(IV-i) User skusiss on Feb 2, 2015: Hi Everyone, I want to aware and know about OM Krishna Developer Neta Ji Subhash place new Delhi. This is a really fraud company. I know about it form 2008. He has not delivered anything till date. So kindly request to all of you please do not do deal with OM Krishana Developer. This is my awareness and notice, so please keep in mind. Sanjeet- 09350250496 Dwarka, New Delhi.
(IV-ii) Complaint comments Read comments Complaint category Real Estate, Om Krishna Developers-Not Refund Money, User Vikas 1980 on May 23, 2014
My Name is Vikas Rajora Contact No is 9810504809, I have booked my plot and give 70% amount when i ask to register my plot they guy told me due to some problem . Please cancelled plot I am agree and they give my PDC cheque . Rs.70000 & 1 Lakh but both cheque is bounced . Mr. Bajaj is not pick my Ph....
(IV-iii) Complaint comments Read comments Complaint category Business & Finances
Om Krishna Developers - Fraud of Om Krishna Developers
User OKD Victim on Apr 28, 2014
I had been trapped by M/s Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in County Garden, Neem Rana (Rajasthan) Project. Even, after 2 years 6 months of booking and 50% payment, the developer did not develop the plot. Still, they demanded rest 50% payment. So, I demanded refund of my money along with applicable interest. The developer refunded my money with 24% interest through several post-dated cheques. All the refund cheques bounced due to “Insufficient Fund”. The developer was then always doing false commitment for payment. Hence, I sent Legal Notice u/s 138 of NI Act. But, the developer did...
(IV-iv) Complaint comments Read comments Complaint category Real Estate
Om Krishna Developers-Very very bad developer and not returning my money
User skusiss on Feb 11, 2014
H-10/103, Express Arcade, Neta Ji Subhash Place Complex-Pitampura, Delhi - 110034, Opposite Fun Cinema Sanjeet, skus*****@gmail.com | 93*****496 Yesterday
Hi Everyone, I want to aware and want about OM Krishna Developer Neta Ji Subhash place new Delhi. This is a really fraud company. I know about it form 2008. He has not delivered anything till date. So kindly request to all of you please do not do deal with OM Krishana Developer. This is my awareness self notice, so please keep in mind. Sanjeet - 09350250496 Dwarka, New Delhi
My name is Sanjeet kr, singh and my cell no. 9350250496. I booked a flat in Rajiv Gandhi EWS flat at Burari in 2009 and paid 1, 25, 000 INR. But 4 yrs after they said that we are enable to build flats and we will return you whole money. Between in this period I visited more than 60 times and they always said that we will build and give possession within 2 month, 3 month but finally last time they give only mental pressure. I was very socked and finally decide to return my money. I got three cheque, only one cheque Rs. 25000 has cleared and one check Rs.50000 had bounced.
(IV-v) Complaint comments Read comments [2] Complaint category Building Developers
Om Krishna Developers Pvt Ltd - Refund money, User Ashish 82 on Dec 5, 2013
We booked a 150 Sq, Yrd. Plot in Neemrana County Garden Project of Om Krishna Developers. We paid almost 70% of plot amount to them. We asked them to take full final amount and get the plot registered to us. They guys explained that there are some government complication come and its better to cancel the plot and refund back your money along with 12% P.A. Interest. We did the same and submit application in August 13 for cancel the plot and refund money back. They guys issued us 06 Post dated cheques of Rs. 70 K each. After regularly following them two cleared only two cheques and rest is still...
(IV-vi) Not returning my money:
User ABHISHEK 17 on Mar 14, 2011, I paid 6,00,000/- to builder for book one 1 BHK flat at OM KRISHNA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD Pitampura Delhi. Now I have some financial problems, so i cant pay further amount. I said to builder in written letter "PLZ SIR I HAVE SOME FINANCIAL PROBLEM ,SO I CAN'T PAY MY FURTHER AMOUNT,SO PLZ RETURN MY PAID MONEY , WHICH I HAVE PAID FOR THAT FLAT " after that he said, i'll pay your money after the transfer of this flat ,but he did not do this as he said even after a
(IV-vii) FRAUD By M/S OM KRISHNA DEVELOPERS (OKD GROUP): By Consumer forums Admin On 13 April 2014
I had been trapped in the fraud of M/s Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in County Garden, Neem Rana (Rajasthan) Project.
Even, after 2 years 6 months of booking and 50% payment, the developer did not develop the plot. Still, they demanded rest 50% payment. So, I demanded refund of my money along with applicable interest. The developer refunded my money with 24% interest through several post-dated cheques. All the refund cheques bounced due to “Insufficient Fund”. The developer was then always doing false commitment for payment. Hence, I sent Legal Notice u/s 138 of NI Act. But, the developer did not respond the Legal Notice. So, I filed complaint case u/s 420, 406, 120(B) of IPC and also u/s 138 of NI Act. Then, the developer was compelled to pay my money and paid it through NEFT well before opening the case. So, I withdrew the case. This process took about 6 months. My money is thus recovered, but I lost interest of 6 months on my money and also lost about Rs. 30,000/- in the legal process. The developer had been using my money for his wrongful gains for 3 years and put me in wrongful loss.
All the victims of this developer are advised to act on similar legal process to get their money recovered.
(IV-viii) Even, after 2 years 6 months of booking and 50% payment, the developer did not develop the plot. Still, they demanded rest 50% payment. So, I demanded refund of my money along with applicable interest. The developer refunded my money with 24% interest through several post-dated cheques. All the refund cheques bounced due to “Insufficient Fund”. The developer was then always doing false commitment for payment. Hence, I sent Legal Notice u/s 138 of NI Act. But, the developer did not respond the Legal Notice. So, I filed Complaint Case u/s 420, 406, 120(B) of IPC and also u/s 138 of NI Act. Then, the developer was compelled to pay my money and paid it through NEFT well before opening the case. So, I withdrew the case. This process took about 6 months. My money is thus recovered, but I lost about Rs. 30,000/- as interest of 6 months on my money and also lost about Rs. 30,000/- in the legal process. The developer had been using my money for his wrongful gains for 3 years and put me in wrongful loss.
All victims are advised to take similar legal action. Details of Om Krishna Developers and its Promoters.
(IV-ix) Om Krishna Developers - not returning my money
User ABHISHEK 17 on Mar 14, 2011
I paid 6,00,000/- to builder for book one 1BHK flat at OM KRISHNA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD Pitampura Delhi. Now I have some financial problems, so i cant pay further amount. I said to builder in written letter "PLZ SIR I HAVE SOME FINANCIAL PROBLEM ,SO I CAN'T PAY MY FURTHER AMOUNT,SO PLZ RETURN MY PAID MONEY ,WHICH I HAVE PAID FOR THAT FLAT " after that he said, I will pay your money after the transfer of this flat ,but he did not do this as he said even after a letter in one month, AND HE IS DELAYING EVERY WEEK ,i am very depressed, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I 'LL DO, PLZ ANY BODY SUGGEST ME, WHAT I DO,,,PLZ PLZ
PLZ INFORMED ME ON MY EMAIL ID
theabhishake17@gmail.com
Complaint comments 5 Comments Updated: Apr 15, 2014
Resolve this Complaint
Comments
D May 31, 2011 by User Dikshaa
Dear Mr. Abhishek Punyani,
As per the above mentioned complaint, We (Om Krishna Developers Pvt Ltd.) have all the proof to prove it wrong.
Wherein, As per our records, you haven't paid Rs 6, 00, 000 to the company for your flat. We have only received the booking amount of Rs. 51, 000/- from you on 25/-5/2010. After considering your application for cancellation of your flat as a 'special case', company returned you the booking amount of Rs. 38,500/- cheque no. 467875 by just deducting cancellation amount as per the company policy. We also have the receiving of the same as on date 13/01/2011 with your signatures and as we can see you have lodged this complaint after 2 months from the date of receiving your payment.
Such false complaints effect the name and reputation of our company.
Further fake complaints will result in strict legal action.
With warm regards,
Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(IV-ix-a): Thank you for your overwhelming response for the email that I had sent earlier (appended below). Some of you wanted us to share the progress, so here I am again sharing my never ending frustration and harassment at the hands of OM Krishna Developers's director Mr. Gupta.
As a result of my last email, Mr. Gupta and his daughter Deeksha called me. Me and my family were assured multiple times over phone that all the outstanding payment will be made on the 6th of January, and that we need to trust them this one more time.
However, as always, Mr. Gupta decided to switch off his phones on the 6th, and with Deeksha also unavailable we were left in the dark. Mr. Gupta called my father-in-law and agreed to give Rs. 1,00,000. I initially disagreed out of frustration, however finally requested him to make the transfer. His partner Mr. Bajaj, however, transferred only Rs. 45,000 and gave some lame excuses for not transferring the rest including that he was not supposed to transfer anymore. Mr. Gupta though initially assured me of the 1,00,000, simply asked me to call later when I brought this to his notice. And now is simply not picking his phone to clarify what does he intend to do.
At the same time, Deeksha, who vented out her anger at me on the 6th for being unreasonable also seems to be following the same tactics her father uses. Assuring me of the intent to pay my money, asking me to be patient, and then ignoring all my attempts to reach out.
in addition to causing us pain, they have now involved our parents as well and making them follow up and continue to lie all the time.
If you have read so far, thank you for your time and the words of support last time. Much appreciated! I sincerely hope none of us have to go through such hard times with our money.
(b) I write this message, seeking some help and support in getting what is rightfully mine. My family is a middle class everyday family and we invested our hard earned money over three years ago in a plot advertised by Om Krishna Developers at their project called County Garden near Neem Rana, Rajasthan. The directors of this company include Diksha Gupta and Ridhima Gupta, both daughters of Mr. Gupta.
We spent over two years waiting for OKD to develop the project, which they didn't. The entire land is exactly the way it was three years ago. There was a legal agreement to ask for our money back with a 24% interest, if the builder does not offer possession of the plot in two years, which we exercised earlier this year. After about 4 months of constant follow up OKD gave us post dated cheques signed by Mr. Gupta.
The first cheque bounced due to lack of funds, and that is when we started realizing that OKD had duped many families of their money, and were harassing them for months. Since then, we have been following up almost daily with Mr. Prem Shankar Gupta and his associate Mr. Narender Bajaj to get our money back. They would either switch off their cell phones, or not pick up our calls. Even if they do, they would give us a date when the payment would be made, and then would simply refuse to make the payment, and give us another date. We must have spent 100's of hours and made uncountable calls to both this gentlemen who don't seem to care. Our continuous requests to meet and get a final firm date have been ignored as well.
All we are trying to do is to find out how to meet Mr. Gupta and ask for our money. We are tired of all the lies and hollow assurances they have to offer. Would really appreciate if one of you could help.
(V) DEVELOPERS NAMES AND ADDRESSES: IF YOU HAVE SOME RELEVANT INFORMATION ADD THROUGH COMMENTS.
1. M/s Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd., H-10/103, Express Arcade, Opp. Fun Cinema, Neta Ji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034.
2. Mr. Prem Shankar Gupta, aged about 56 years, son of Mr. Itwari Lal Gupta, Director and Signatory.
3. Mrs. Urmila Gupta, aged about 54 years, wife of Mr. Prem Shankar Gupta, daughter of Mr. Guru Ram Choudhry, Director and Signatory.
4. Miss Diksha Gupta, aged about 30 years, daughter of Mr. Prem Shankar Gupta, Director and Signatory. Mob. Nos. +919711164646 & Ridhima Gupta Mob.: +91 9999812221
All residing at House No-30, Block-A2, Nehru Gali, Chandan Vihar, West Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi –110084.
(Issued in the Public Interest. Some information gathered from www.mca.gov.in/MCA21 website. Contact–usha 1923@yahoo.com or okdvictim@gmail.com for more details)-See more at: http://consumercomplaints.net.in/fraud-of-om-krishna-developers-okd group#sthash.9pYsy2AF.dpuf
(VI) FALSE CLAIM: It is this belief system that has driven OKD Group over the years, to diversify and grow in new domains & segments of the real estate business. We are an ISO 9001:2000 Certified Company, Incorporated as P. Gupta Properties in 1988, to undertake Construction business; the company changed its constitution as Krishna Enterprises, in 1997. The name of the company was changed to Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. in 2003; further business expansion necessitate to add another company, OKD Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. to form the OKD Group in 2010, to established road map for our existing projects while simultaneously exploring opportunities to provide you with additional value. Ridhima Gupta owner @looks unisex salon, Connaught place. New Delhi.
(VII) THREATS TO REFUND SEEKERS: Some one by the name of Mundra, 28, Mob.+919999767257 claiming to be owner of unisex salon, Connaught place. New Delhi-110001 & fiancee of one of Mr. P.S.Gupta daughters-directors of Mr. Gupta's firms, is threatening the refund seekers of dire consequences, if they write any thing against the promoters. He claimed to have invested Rs. 2 crore in it. He was growling the word request.
(VIII) During the last 2 months a number of civil, criminal cases are filed in Delhi Courts in addition to cases in consumer courts, under section 138 NI Act 138, 420 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment extending up to 7 years with fine. There is criminal breach of trust thereby making the developer liable to imprisonment extending up to three years with fine under section 406 IPC. Notices have been served and duly received. Soon FIRs will also be filed through the intervention of court. The lawyers are at work. Criminal conspiracy, frauds, cheating have been detected. The developer is said to be in possession of properties worth hundreds of crores as per rough estimates.
(IX) Even, if the government takes over the land for development, the OKD will be gain tremendously, since the present rules permits 6 times compensation to him. Bajaj, his associate cum manager cum partner or what ever he is; claims that out of 130 people desirous of refund 82 have been paid. He is not willing to compensate for the legal expenditure and the over heads incurred by the people who booked plots there. He says that if Gupta goes to jail, how will the people get refund?!
महोदय/ महोदया,
आपका ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र जो थानाध्यक्ष/प्रभारी निरीक्षक को सम्बोधित है jansunwai.up.nic.in पोर्टल पर दर्ज हो गया है जिसका पंजीकरण क्रमांक 40014122000461 है| संदर्भो की नवीनतम स्थिति जनसुनवाई पोर्टल /मोबाइल ऐप के माध्यम से देखी जा सकती है मोबाइल ऐप डाउनलोड करने हेतु लिंक play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.nic.up.jansunwai.upjansunwai
UP RERA ने एक साल बीत जाने के बावजूद फैसला सुरक्षित रखा!?
DM, CM, PM को भेजे पत्र बेकार साबित हुए।
Ansal के कर्मचारियों ने 20,000 लोगों का डाटा, अन्य बिल्डर्स को बेच दिया। वे कहते हैं कि 7 साल से बगैर तनख्वाह के काम कर रहे हैं। ये बिल्डर्स रोज फोन करके दुःखी करते है।
कंजूमर फोरम में फैसला उट पटांग ही होगा क्योंकि प्रतिवादी के वकीलों ने वहाँ भी डेरा डाल रखा है।
UP RERA Complaint No. NCR144/08/1793/2019
Customer Code :: 502/S0046
Unit :: Daffodil Blooms, Duplex, Plot No. 102, Sector 5, Area 361.83 sq. m.
AMOUNT PAID :: Rs.35,85,627.82 (Rupees thirty five Lakh, eighty five thousand, six hundred & eighty paise.
PLOT AREA :: 312.50 sq.m.
Ansal api was fined Rs. one crore by UP RERA for illegally transferring Rs. 600 crore for transferring investors funds [25.06.2019]
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION ::
(1). Agreement clauses are one sided & harsh, buyers can not be forced to forfeit deposits.[04.06.2019]
(1). Agreement clauses are one sided & harsh, buyers can not be forced to forfeit deposits.[04.06.2019]
(2). Time period for seeking refund quantised to one year.[17.05.2019]
(3). Payment of rent to buyers :: if the builder fails to deliver flat/house, even after 3 years, he is liable to pay Rs. 2500/= per day & Rs. one Lakh as compensation.
Ansals have movable & immovable properties in the form of Land bank, malls, offices and flats.
Dear Mr. A.K. Shukla (akshukla@ansalapi.com),
I made sent several emails, registered letters, made several phone calls and visited the Ansal api office in Greater Noida. No satisfactory answer was received. Neither emails nor registered letters were replied by Ansal api.
Dear Mr. A.K. Shukla (akshukla@ansalapi.com),
I made sent several emails, registered letters, made several phone calls and visited the Ansal api office in Greater Noida. No satisfactory answer was received. Neither emails nor registered letters were replied by Ansal api.
Since, the company is not ready to give the house, I seek refund with interest and compensation.
Ref No. UP RERA Complaint No. NCR144/08/1793/2019
Customer Code :: 502/S0046
Unit :: Daffodil Blooms, Duplex, Plot No. 102, Sector 5, Area 361.83 sq. m.
Sincerely yours,
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
(6). Date of receiving possession ::
(7). Phone/mobile number ::
(8). email address ::
I have to lodge FIR and strict action against the builder. Please register complaint against the builder and help us recover our hard earned money with principle, interest & compensation. Ansals charged interest at the rate of 18-23% per annum compounded annually. Compensation is computed at the rental value to the flat, duplex I booked. In addition to this I have under gone mental torture & harassment at the hands of the builder for which at least Rs. 2 Lakh should be recovered from the builder. All his properties-assets (movable & immovable) should be sized and auctioned to recover our money. Their property Ansal Plaza at Greater Noida and their Kasturba Gandhi Marg office in New Delhi should also be seized. A chunk of land is available with the builder at Bodaki, which too is supposed to seized. Their passports should be cancelled and bank accounts seized at once.
The builder has not paid salary to the employees for the past 7 years and yet they are sitting in the office negotiating dubious deals with the investors. So many other builders have joined hands with him. They have political clout as well. The SHO, Beeta Police Station, Pari Chowk is unwilling to take any action against him.
The builder is manipulating RERA & consumer court order and dragging the legal battle.
Yours faithfully,
SK
Copy to :: DM, G.B.Nagar, CM-UP, PM-India & the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India.
N.B. In addition to this copies will be forwarded to all media houses, twitter & face book.
If the authorities fail to take stern action against the builder, we will be compelled to launch agitation.
I been receiving numerous calls from the agents of the builders siting in Ansal Plaza with the employees. The employees who claim that they have not received their salary for a long time, are playing dirty/foul game. They are hand in gloves with the notorious builders. They are offering flats in lieu of my deposit. How is it that a company-builder which is unable to refund money-deposits; is in a position to negotiate-settle for a small flat and asking for huge sums of additional money. passing of my personal information to anyone by the Ansal employees is a criminal offence.
Officers posted at Police Commissionerate G.B. Nagar
S. No. Name of IPS Officer Email Id
1 ALOK SINGH cp-pol.gb@up.gov.in
2 LOVE KUMAR addcp-pollo.gb@up.gov.in
3 PUSHPANJALI DEVI addcp-polhq.gb@up.gov.in
4 HARISH CHANDER dcp-polcnoida.gb@up.gov.in
Ref No. UPRERA Complaint No. NCR144/08/1793/2019
S. No. Name of IPS Officer Email Id
1 ALOK SINGH cp-pol.gb@up.gov.in
2 LOVE KUMAR addcp-pollo.gb@up.gov.in
3 PUSHPANJALI DEVI addcp-polhq.gb@up.gov.in
4 HARISH CHANDER dcp-polcnoida.gb@up.gov.in
सेवा में,
श्रीमान सहायक पुलिस उपायुक्त,
गौतम बुद्ध नगर,
उत्तर प्रदेश।
विषय :: भवन निर्माता अंसल बिल्डर्स के विरुद्ध FIR लेखन।
महोदय,
मैंने दिनाँक 01.10.2021 को आपके दफ़्तर में आपके समक्ष, व्यक्तिगत रूप से उपस्थित होकर अंसल निर्माणकर्त्ता के विरुद्ध अपनी शिकायत प्रस्तुत की।
मैं उस शिकायत का हिन्दी रूपान्तरण प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूँ, जो कि इस प्रकार है :-
मैं 70 वर्षीय, कैंसर से पीड़ित, उच्चतम माध्यमिक विद्यालय का सेवा निवृत प्रधानाचार्य हूँ। सेवा निवृति के तत्पश्चात मैंने अपनी और अपनी पत्नी की पैंशन और ग्रैचुइटी की राशि का रु.35,85,636 अंसल हाई टेक की डुप्लेक्स योजना में निवेश किया। प्लाट का आकर 313 वर्ग मीटर, दो मंजिलों में आच्छादित क्षेत्र 361.75 मी., भवन के आगे 10 हैक्टेयर का पार्क, आगे 50 वर्गमीटर खुला क्षेत्र और पीछे 20 वर्गमीटर खुले क्षेत्र का प्रावधान था।
योजना का वर्णन :: 5/102, Daffodils, Bloom, SUSHANT LOK, MEGAPOLS.
निर्माण कर्ता का दफ्तर अंसल प्लाज़ा, परीचौक और अंसल भवन कस्तूरबा गाँधी मार्ग, नई दिल्ली में स्थित है।
बुकिंग 2,012 में की गई और सुपुर्दगी की तारीख 2,014 थी।
अब अंसल न तो भवन दे रहा है और ना ही ब्याज और हर्जाने सहित जमापूँजी। मेरे साथ धोखाधड़ी की गई है।
मैंने 16.06.2019 को अपनी शिकायत SSP, G.B.Nagar, DM G.B.Nagar को FIR हेतु डाक के माध्यम से प्रस्तुत थी, जिसको पहले नोयडा सैक्टर 20 फिर परीचौक भेज दिया गया। इस पर आज तक कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गई है।
मौंके पर इनका कोई कर्मचारी नहीं मिलता। इन कर्मचारियों ने हमारा मोबाइल नम्बर लगभग सभी बिल्डर्स को दे दिया है जो कि आये दिन, मौंके -बे मौंके हमें प्रताड़ित करते हैं।
आपसे अनुरोध है कि अंसल के विरुध्द सख़्त दंडात्मक कार्यवाही करें।
निवेदन कर्ता,
Dt. 07.10.2021.
मैंने ग्रेटर नोयडा में एक डूप्लेस मकान जिसका क्षेत्रफल 313 वर्गमीटर और बना हुए भाग का क्षेत्रफल 363 वर्गमीटर था। यह मकान मुझे 2,014 तक मिल जाना चाहिये था जो कि अब तक नहीं मिला। भवन निर्माता अंसल हैं, जिनके कार्यालय परी चौक और कस्तूरबा गाँधी मार्ग, नई दिल्ली में स्थित हैं।
इन्होंने मेरी किसी खतो-ख़ितावत, ईमेल का ज़बाब नहीं दिया।
मैंने जून 2019 में SSP G.B.Nagar लिखित शिकायत करके FIR दर्ज़ करने का आग्रह किया। एक हप्ते बाद परीचौक पुलिस चौकी से फ़ोन आया और मुझे वहाँ आने के लिए कहा गया। स्वास्थ्य सम्बन्धी परेशानी के कारण मैंने असमर्थता जताई तो उन्होंने मेरे से इस विषय में समस्त रसीदों को WhatsApp पर भेजने को कहा। मैंने सभी दस्तावेज़ उन्हें भेज दिये।
कार्यवाही न होने पर मैंने पुलिस, DM और मुख्य मंत्री से पुनः शिकायत की मगर किसी के कान पर जूँ नहीं रेंगी।
इसके पश्चात् में शक्ति भारद्वाज 29.09.2021को ग्रेटर नोयडा स्थित थानों में गये मगर हर जगह शिकायत दर्ज़ करने से इंकार कर दिया दिया गया। पुलिस कर्मियों का व्यवहार बेहद विनम्र, शालीन था।
01.10.2021 को हम DCP महोदय से मिले तो उन्होंने हमारी अर्ज़ी स्वीकार कर ली।
कोई कार्यवाही न होने पर हम पुनः 29.12.2021 को DCP कार्यालय गये मग़र उनको उनको स्थानांतरित किया जा चुका था। हमें DCP और ACP से मिलने नहीं दिया गया। UPPER ACP ने हमसे एक घण्टे तक प्रतीक्षा कराई।
आख़िरकार थक-हार कर मैंने DGP, POLICE COMMISSNER और मुख्य मंत्री को 07.01.2022 को ईमेल भेजी हैं। मैंने अपनी शिकायत जनसुनवाई पर दर्ज़ कराई है।
पुलिस पर शिक़ायत दर्ज़ न करने दबाब है, जिसके आगे मुख्य मंत्री भी लाचार है।
पिछले दिनों कासना में एक सभा से राज्य सभा के लोक सभा के सांसद को काले झण्डे दिखाये गये। उससे पहले मिहिर भोज की मूर्ति को लेकर BJP की काफी छीछालेदन हुई।
लोकसभा सांसद और विधान सभा सदस्य किसी काम के नहीं हैं।
किसान आन्दोलन और भूमि मुआवज़े को लेकर इस क्षेत्र में गूजर समाज BJP से खासा नाराज़ है। गन्दा पेयजल और बेहद कम दबाब से आपूर्ति की वज़ह से और FREE HOLD ने किये जाने से शहरी आबादी-जनता भी नाराज़ है। इन्हीं इन्हीं कारणों के चलते योगी ने योजनाओं का लोकार्पण स्वयं नहीं किया।
इन सफेदपोश बदमाशों के ख़िलाफ़ कार्यवाही कब होगी!?
Contents of these above mentioned blogs are covered under copyright and anti piracy laws. Republishing needs written permission from the author. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED WITH THE AUTHOR.
संतोष महादेव-धर्म विद्या सिद्ध व्यास पीठ (बी ब्लाक, सैक्टर 19, नौयडा)
skbhardwaj1951@gmail.com
14 cases have been filed against 8 top builders in 6 police stations of Noida-Greater Noida.
Some of builders include Amrapali Group, Supertech, Today Home Builder, Alpine group, GNC and 1 Bruy Ltd.
500 investors have complained about these builders.
In a major relief to home buyers, for the first time, 14 cases have been filed against 8 top builders in 6 police stations of Noida-Greater Noida.
Some of builders include Amrapali Group, Supertech, Today Home Builder, Alpine group, GNC and 1 Bruy Ltd.
SSP said that cases of fraud have been registered against these builders and that 500 investors have complained about these builders.
After investigating the complaints, police has lodged the cases.
Seven cases have been filed against Amarpali in Bisrakh Kotwali and 1 in Sector 39's police station.
Few days back, home-buyers had complained about these builders to a three ministers committee.
The state committee-led by Cabinet minister Suresh Khanna had said that all possibilities will be explored to provide relief to home buyers. They even assured home buyers that their interest will be take care of, and even if they are not satisfied with that, then, they can lodge a police complaint.
Following the assurance, home buyers had started sending complaints against builders to the police.
Amrapali Group: Rs 1304 crore.
Unitech Ltd: Rs 280 crore.
Omaxe Constructions Ltd: Rs 156 crore.
ATS infrastructure Ltd: Rs 144 crore.
Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt: Rs 112 crore.
Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt Ltd: Rs 76 crore.
Asteroid Shelters Limited: Rs 68 crore.
Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt Ltd: Rs 24 crore.
To
The DGP UP LUCKNOW/POLICE COMMISSIONER,
G.B.NAGAR, UP.
SUBJECT :: Filing FIR against ANSAL BUILDERS.
REFERENCE :: S/102, daffodils, Blooms, Megapolis, adjoining Pari Chauwk, G.B.Nagar, Noida.
Sir,
I sent an email, followed by speed post on 16.06.2019, requesting SSP G.B.Nagar, Greater Noida, UP to lodge an FIR against Messer's ANSAL BROTHERS PROMOTERS OF SUSHANT LOK, HITECH TOWN SHIP. They have offices in Greater Noida, Pari Chauwk, G.B.Nagar and Kasturba Gandhi Road, New Delhi.
The Police Post Incharge, Pari Chauwk called me after a few days and I sent all relevant papers to him via wattApp as desired by him. I waited for 2 years and now, We visited the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police on 01.10.2021, as per advice of the Suraj Pur & Knowledge parks Police officials along with Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj and his son Vivek, residents of :- D-167, Sector-27, Noida, who too have been cheated.
Initially, we visited the police officials on 20.09.2021.
The complaint was submitted by hand to DCP on 01.10.2021. Later as well. Its Hindi translation too submitted on demand.
A police man came to me to record my statement, after about one week.
We went to Pari Chauwk Police Post, Beeta 2 Police station and were directed to ACP's office on 29.12.2021. We were not allowed to meet him. We tried to meet Upper ACP, who kept us waiting for about an hour.
The DCP who accepted our applications, was transferred.
Its my sincere and most earnest request to you to register the FIR against the builders.
The price of the property in question, has increased hundred fold in this period. The builder has 2,591 acres of land out of which they have handed over about 800 acres to another builder (may be MIGSON). Buland Shahr Khurja Authority may acquire rest of the land soon.
We have been deprived of the interest and made to pay several charges. The builders were asked to refund the deposit along with compensation and 20% interest compounded quarterly. They in jail for other grave offences.
I am a retired school Principal, suffering from cancer for more than 3 years, now. Money was paid through RTGS and cheques. It constituted the pension and gratuity received by me and my wife after our retirement.
Kindly, take sever action against the builders who have mentally tortured & cheated us. There are more than 20,000 sufferers in Greater Noida alone.
Sincerely yours,
SANTOSH KUMAR BHARDWAJ,
Dt.06.01.2022
cp-pol.gb@up.gov.in
dgpcontrol-up@nic.in
जनसुनवाई पोर्टल पोर्टल पर दर्ज पंजीकरण क्रमांक
jansunwai-up@gov.in via gov.in
Thu, Jan 6, 7:44 PM (4 days ago)
महोदय/ महोदया,
आपका ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र जो थानाध्यक्ष/प्रभारी निरीक्षक को सम्बोधित है jansunwai.up.nic.in पोर्टल पर दर्ज हो गया है जिसका पंजीकरण क्रमांक 40014122000461 है| संदर्भो की नवीनतम स्थिति जनसुनवाई पोर्टल /मोबाइल ऐप के माध्यम से देखी जा सकती है मोबाइल ऐप डाउनलोड करने हेतु लिंक play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.nic.up.jansunwai.upjansunwai
REFUND OF BOOKING AMOUNT TOWARDS UNIT S-102, SUSHANT MEGAPOLS
Santosh Kumar <skbhardwaj51@gmail.com>
Mon, Feb 6, 2017, 5:07 PM
This is in continuation of my mail dated. 14.01.2017 and letter written to Manager ANSAL HI TECH TOWN SHIP LIMITED, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi dated. 01.02.2017 seeking refund of booking amount.
Please make it convenient to refund the entire money paid by me against unit No. 102, in Sector-5 of Sushant Megapolis.
The money has to be refunded as per terms and conditioned laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court of India and the latest Consumer Court decisions which have awarded an interest of 10.13% over the entire deposit along with deemed rent for such a unit for a period, calculated from the date of handing over the unit i.e., since 2014.
My Savings Bank Account No. is XXX Noida (201301).
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
Dated.06.02.2017.
Santosh Kumar <skbhardwaj51@gmail.com>
Sat, Mar 25, 2017, 12:23 PM
You told me that you will call back, you did not respond.
You promised me to expedite the case for refund of money, PERTAINING TO 5102, SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS, you did not even care to reply.
Dt. 25.03.2017.
Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj <skbhardwaj51@gmail.com>
REFUND OF MONEY PAID AGAINST 05102 SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS
Santosh Kumar <skbhardwaj51@gmail.com>
Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 5:55 PM
to anildagar
Dear Anil,
As I told you just now, I am senior citizen and facing hardship due to resource crunch. I booked this built up unit out of my pension funds to live quietly, away from Delhi. The company will have to pay interest in addition to rental @ Rs.50,000 per month from 2014 on wards as per latest decisions of Hon. Supreme Court. I again request you to kindly expedite the case of refund along with interest and other benefits available to me.
I shall remain obliged to you.
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
dated.10.04.2017.
Dear Mr. Dagar,
I am still waiting for communication from your side. There is no response from your side w.r.t. to my request for refund of entire booking amount with interest pertaining to the delivery of the built up house No. 102, in sector-5, Sushant megapolis Bodaki, till this moment. Please inform about the current situation regarding refund.
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj.
Dated. 06.03.2017.
This is in continuation of my mail dated. 14.01.2017 and letter written to Manager ANSAL HI TECH TOWN SHIP LIMITED, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi dated. 01.02.2017 seeking refund of booking amount.
Please make it convenient to refund the entire money paid by me against unit No. 102, in Sector-5 of Sushant Megapolis.
The money has to be refunded as per terms and conditioned laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court of India and the latest Consumer Court decisions which have awarded an interest of 10.13% over the entire deposit along with deemed rent for such a unit for a period, calculated from the date of handing over the unit i.e., since 2014.
My Savings Bank Account No. is XXX Noida (201301).
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
Dated.06.02.2017.
Demand of 18% interest over default payment
Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj <gmail.com>
Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 5:13 PM
to infouprera
Ref. No. NCR144/08/1793/2019
Ansal API had charged 18% interest over default payment. Hence its liable to refund deposits at least at the same rate.
Santoh Kumar Bhardwaj,
AttachmentsMon, Aug 24, 2020, 5:16 PM
Ref. No. NCR144/08/1793/2019 Ansal API had charged 18% interest over default payment. Hence its liable to refund deposits at least at the same rate.
Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj
Attachments Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 5:17 PM
Ref. No. NCR144/08/1793/2019 Ansal API had charged 18% interest over default payment. Hence its liable to refund deposits at least at the same rate.
Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj <gmail.com>
Attachments
Probable date of next instalment: 05/102
Santosh Kumar <gmail.com>
Fri, Feb 15, 2013, 7:21 PM
to megapolis
1. Please give the probable date of next instalment.
2. Confirm whether the excess sum paid by me has been adjusted or not.
3. Hence forth, treat only me and my wife as co owners-allottes.
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
There is no news from your side pertaining to the status of the project. Please inform all that which is causing delay. Its you who is responsible for the delay not the allottees, if you talk of cost escalation later as the agreement signed by us with you.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Santosh Kumar <email> wrote:
1. Please give the probable date of next instalment.
2. Confirm whether the excess sum paid by me has been adjusted or not.
3. Hence forth, treat only me and my wife as co owners-allottes.
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
Santosh Kumar <email> Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:21 PM
To: megapolis@ansalapi.com
1. Please give the probable date of next instalment.
2. Confirm whether the excess sum paid by me has been adjusted or not.
3. Hence forth, treat only me and my wife as co owners-allottes.
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
Santosh Kumar <email>
Wed, Jan 8, 2014, 9:12 AM
to megapolis
There is no news from your side pertaining to the status of the project. Please inform all that which is causing delay. Its you who is responsible for the delay not the allottees, if you talk of cost escalation later as the agreement signed by us with you.
Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj <gmail.com>
12:36 PM (5 hours ago)
Deposition of Instalment wrt Villa #102, Sector-5 Sushant Megapolis
Santosh Kumar <skbhardwaj> Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM
To: rakeshansal@gmail.com
A sum of Rs.11,34,717.15P has been deposited in the Punjab National Bank , Gr. Noida, NRI-City, Omega UP Branch A/c No.4603002100000808 through Rtgs on 18.06.2012 at State Bank Of India Branch No.11859, A-232, Sector-19, Noida,201302, UP.
Ref. No.UTR-SBI NH 12170304123.
Towards the instalment of Villa #102, Sector -5 Sushant Megapolis.
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
Please send receipt.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM, <rakeshansal@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks a lot.
------Original Message------
To: Santosh Kumar
Subject: Re: Identify Proofs and other documents for Villa #102, Sector -5 Sushant Megapolis
Sent: Jan 1, 1970 5:45 AM
------Original Message------
From: Santosh Kumar
To: rakesh@sushantmegapolis.com
To: prashantbhardwaanchj@gmail.com
Subject: Identify Proofs and other documents for Villa #102, Sector -5 Sushant Megapolis
Sent: Mar 23, 2012 7:54 PM
Dear Rakesh,
Please find the following documents attached. It was great meeting you today. Would look forward to having you home for a cup of tea soon!
Regards,
SK Bhardwaj
SK Bhardwaj Passport Front Page.jpeg
SK Bhardwaj Passport Back Page.jpeg
Mithilesh Bhardwaj Passport Front Page.jpeg
Mithilesh Bhardwaj Passport Back Page.jpeg
Mithilesh Bhardwaj PAN Card.jpeg
SK Bhardwaj PAN Card.jpeg
Photographs (Prashant Bhardwaj Mithilesh Bhardwaj SK Bhardwaj).jpeg
Santosh Kumar <email> Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:16 PM
To: rakesh@sushantmegapolis.com
A sum of Rs.30710.68P was deposited in your Punjab National Bank account no.46030002100000808 at NRI City Sec Omega Greater Noida IFC code 0460300 vide UTR 12237228622 from State Bank of India Sec 19 Noida branch on 24.08.2012 through RTGS towards daffodils blooms no.05102 at mega polis/built up in addition to *recpt. no.21422 dt. 20.08.2012 for Rs. 646215.90p.already paid on 18.08.2012.Though the demand was unjustified. Please send recpt.
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj
Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj <skbhardwaj51@gmail.com>
Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 6:36 PM
to akshukla
Dear Mr. A.K. Shukla (akshukla@ansalapi.com),
I made sent several emails, registered letters, made several phone calls and visited the Ansal api office in Greater Noida. No satisfactory answer was received. Neither emails nor registered letters were replied by Ansal api.
Since, the company is not ready to give the house, I seek refund with interest and compensation.
Customer Code ::502/S0046
Unit :: Daffodil Blooms, Duplex, Plot No. 102, Sector 5, Area 361.83 sq. m.
S. No. | Receipt No. | Date | Amount paid |
1. | 17111 | 27.03.2012 | 5,90,891.00 |
2. | 19694 | 04.07.2012 | 11,34,717.15 |
3. | 21422 | 20.08.2012 | 6,46,215.00 |
4. | 22970 | 27.09.2012 | 30,710.68 |
5. | 24076 | 23.10.2012 | 6,06,941.80 |
6. | 25076 | 26.11.2012 | 5,76,162.19 |
GRAND TOTAL :: Rs.35,85,627.82 (Rupees thirty five Lakh, eighty five thousand, six hundred & eighty paise.
Sincerely yours,
Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj,
Filing FIR against ANSAL BUILDERS.
Inbox
Pt. Santosh Bhardwaj <email>
Attachments
Thu, Jan 6, 7:17 PM (4 days ago)
to cp-pol.gb
To
The POLICE COMMISSIONER,
G.B.NAGAR, UP.
SUBJECT :: Filing FIR against ANSAL BUILDERS.
REFERENCE :: S/102, daffodils, Blooms, Megapolis, adjoining Pari Chauwk, G.B.Nagar, Noida.
Sir,
I sent an email, followed by speed post on 16.06.2019, requesting SSP G.B.Nagar, Greater Noida, UP to lodge an FIR against Messer's ANSAL BROTHERS PROMOTERS OF SUSHANT LOK, HITECH TOWN SHIP. They have offices in Greater Noida, Pari Chauwk, G.B.Nagar and Kasturba Gandhi Road, New Delhi.
The Police Post Incharge, Pari Chauwk called me after a few days and I sent all relevant papers to him via wattApp as desired by him. I waited for 2 years and now, We visited the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police on 01.10.2021, as per advice of the Suraj Pur & Knowledge parks Police officials along with Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj and his son Vivek, residents of :- D-137, Sector-27, Noida, who too have been cheated.
Initially, we visited the police officials on 20.09.2021.
The complaint was submitted by hand to DCP on 01.10.2021. Later as well. Its Hindi translation too submitted on demand.
A police man came to me to record my statement, after about one week.
We went to Pari Chauwk Police Post, Beeta 2 Police station and were directed to ACP's office on 29.12.2021. We were not allowed to meet him. We tried to meet Upper ACP, who kept us waiting for about an hour.
The DCP who accepted our applications, was transferred.
Its my sincere and most earnest request to you to register the FIR against the builders.
The price of the property in question, has increased hundred fold in this period. The builder has 2,591 acres of land out of which they have handed over about 800 acres to another builder (may be MIGSON). Buland Shahr Khurja Authority may acquire rest of the land soon.
We have been deprived of the interest and made to pay several charges. The builders were asked to refund the deposit along with compensation and 20% interest compounded quarterly. They in jail for other grave offences.
I am a retired school Principal, suffering from cancer for more than 3 years, now. Money was paid through RTGS and cheques. It constituted the pension and gratuity received by me and my wife after our retirement.
Kindly, take sever action against the builders who have mentally tortured & cheated us. There are more than 20,000 sufferers in Greater Noida alone.
Sincerely yours,
SANTOSH KUMAR BHARDWAJ,
Dated. 06.01.2022.
4 Attachments
cmup via nic.in
Thu, Jan 6, 7:29 PM (4 days ago)
प्रिय महोदय,
आपका ईमेल मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय के आधिकारिक ईमेल पर प्राप्त हुआ है. यदि आपका ईमेल जनशिकायत श्रेणी का है तो आपको सविनय अवगत कराना है कि मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय, उ०प्र० द्वारा जनता की शिकायतों को दर्ज किए जाने हेतु उ०प्र० सरकार का आधिकारिक ऑनलाइन पोर्टल 'जन-सुनवाई' विकसित किया गया है जिसका वेब एड्रेस नीचे दिया गया है -
http://jansunwai.up.nic.in
आपसे निवेदन है कि अपनी शिकायतों के त्वरित निस्तारण हेतु जनसुनवाई पोर्टल का प्रयोग करें
धन्यवाद।
मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय, उ०प्र०
नोट- वेबसाइट या जनसुनवाई के मोबाइल app के माध्यम से ऑनलाइन दर्ज की गयी शिकायतों के निस्तारण की समीक्षा भी मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय द्वारा गहनता से की जाती है |
जनसुनवाई मोबाइल app डाउनलोड करने के लिए नीचे दिए गए लिंक पर क्लिक करें|
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.nic.up.jansunwai.upjansunwai
शिकायत के वेबसाइट पर दर्ज होने के पश्चात की प्रक्रिया -
आपके मोबाइल पर sms/ईमेल के माध्यम से चौदह अंकों की शिकायत/सन्दर्भ पंजीकरण संख्या प्राप्त होगी | इस पंजीकरण संख्या एवं दर्ज मोबाइल नंबर/ईमेल के माध्यम से आप किसी भी समय अपनी शिकायत की स्थिति सीधे वेबसाइट या मोबाइल app पर देख सकते हैं एवं निस्तारण के पश्चात निस्तारण आख्या भी देख सकते हैं |
इसके अतिरिक्त किसी भी स्तर पर शिकायत के अधिक समय तक लंबित रहने पर आप अपनी शिकायत का रिमाइंडर भी भेज सकते हैं तथा निस्तारण आख्या से असंतुष्टि की दशा में अपना फीडबैक भी पोर्टल पर दर्ज कर सकते हैं। आपके फीडबैक का मूल्यांकन निस्तारणकर्ता अधिकारी से एक स्तर उच्च अधिकारी द्वारा किया जाएगा।
मूल्यांकन में आपकी आपत्तियों से सहमति की दशा में आपका संदर्भ/शिकायत पुनर्जीवित हो जायेगी, तथा उसका पुनः परीक्षण कर गुणवत्तापूर्ण निस्तारण सुनिश्चित किया जाएगा।
 |
 |
 |
 |
  |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INSOLVANCY :: 5.66 Lakh units are under construction since 2,013 in NCR. At present such units stands at 3.96 lakh. The builders are making grave misuse-mockery of insolvency laws. The government must update-modify the laws to make the builders answerable. Their auditing before beginning with the project must be an essential feature. If a builder opts for insolvency all his assets be seized, Pass Port & Visa cancelled, all his accounts including family members, be freezed. In case the builder become bankrupt the funds of investors be refunded with 20% interest and compensation at market rate by selling all their properties.
A buyer’s worst nightmare is having his builder go bankrupt which is purely manipulative in nature, since he diverts the funds else where. Such an event can bring the construction of his property to a halt, putting his investment at significant risk. What is scarier is that as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, buyers may be at the losing end in such a scenario, especially if the builder owes massive debts to creditors such as banks and other financial institutions.
[6:00 pm, 30/8/2024] Mithilesh Bhardwaj: मैं चमरावली, रामगढ़ गांव में मेगापोलिस प्रोजेक्ट के संबंध में आपको कुछ गंभीर समस्याओं की जानकारी देना चाहती हूँ जो 2008 से लंबित है। कई वर्षों के बावजूद, डेवलपर, अनसाल डेवलपर्स ने किसी भी विकासात्मक गतिविधि की शुरुआत नहीं की है। कृपया निम्नलिखित मुद्दों पर ध्यान दें:
1. भूमि स्वामित्व की कमी: बिल्डर, अनसाल डेवलपर्स के पास परियोजना के लिए आवश्यक भूमि का स्वामित्व नहीं था, फिर भी उन्होंने भूखंडों की बिक्री की।
2. अधिक ऋण: बिल्डर ने भूमि के खिलाफ भारी ऋण लिया है, जिससे परियोजना की वित्तीय स्थिरता और विकास प्रभावित हुआ है।
3. विकास गतिविधियों की कमी: 2008 से, परियोजना पर कोई विकास कार्य शुरू या पूरा नहीं हुआ है, इसके बावजूद आश्वासन और समझौते किए गए थे।
4. विपणन में भ्रामकता: भूमि को खरीदारों को एक विकसित परियोजना के आश्वासन के आधार पर बेचा गया था, और लागत इसी आधार पर तय की गई थी। हालांकि, परियोजना अभी भी अविकसित है।
5. समझौते की समस्याएँ: समझौते की प्रक्रिया के दौरान बिल्डर के कर्मचारियों द्वारा अनेक शिकायतें की गई हैं, जिसमें शोषण और अन्याय की घटनाएं सामने आई हैं।
6. अपूर्ण दस्तावेज़: जिन खरीदारों ने रजिस्ट्री पूरी की है, उन्हें केवल आंशिक दस्तावेज ही प्रदान किए गए हैं, जिससे कानूनी और स्वामित्व समस्याएँ उत्पन्न हो रही हैं।
7. रजिस्ट्री और म्यूटेशन की समस्याएँ: यद्यपि फ्रीहोल्ड संपत्ति की रजिस्ट्री पूरी हो चुकी है, खरीदारों को आवश्यक म्यूटेशन दस्तावेज नहीं दिए जा रहे हैं।
इन समस्याओं के समाधान के लिए मैं निम्नलिखित कार्यवाही की अपील करती हूँ:
- समीक्षा और कार्यवाही: कृपया स्थिति की समीक्षा करें और अनसाल डेवलपर्स के खिलाफ उचित कार्यवाही करें ताकि वे अपनी जिम्मेदारियाँ पूरी करें या जिम्मेदारी निभाने के लिए दंडित किए जाएं।
- परियोजना का हस्तांतरण: यदि अनसाल डेवलपर्स परियोजना को पूरा करने में असमर्थ हैं, तो कृपया किसी सक्षम बिल्डर को विकास की जिम्मेदारी हस्तांतरित करने की संभावना पर विचार करें।
हस्तांतरण के प्रावधान: कृपया जानकारी दें कि क्या ऐसी कोई प्रावधान या नियम हैं जो परियोजना को नए बिल्डर को सौंपने की अनुमति देते हैं।
मैं आपके कार्यालय से अनुरोध करती हूँ कि इस मामले पर तुरंत कार्रवाई की जाए ताकि प्रभावित खरीदारों
विषय: चमरावली, रामगढ़ गांव में सुषांत मेगा कॉलेज प्रोजेक्ट के खिलाफ अनसाल डेवलपर्स के खिलाफ शिकायत*
महोदय/महोदया,*
मैं चमरावली, रामगढ़ गांव में सुषांत मेगा कॉलेज प्रोजेक्ट के संबंध में आपको कुछ गंभीर समस्याओं की जानकारी देना चाहता हूँ जो 2008 से लंबित है। कई वर्षों के बावजूद, डेवलपर, अनसाल डेवलपर्स ने किसी भी विकासात्मक गतिविधि की शुरुआत नहीं की है। कृपया निम्नलिखित मुद्दों पर ध्यान दें:
1. भूमि स्वामित्व की कमी: बिल्डर, अनसाल डेवलपर्स के पास परियोजना के लिए आवश्यक भूमि का स्वामित्व नहीं था, फिर भी उन्होंने भूखंडों की बिक्री की।
2. अधिक ऋण: बिल्डर ने भूमि के खिलाफ भारी ऋण लिया है, जिससे परियोजना की वित्तीय स्थिरता और विकास प्रभावित हुआ है।
3. विकास गतिविधियों की कमी: 2008 से, परियोजना पर कोई विकास कार्य शुरू या पूरा नहीं हुआ है, इसके बावजूद आश्वासन और समझौते किए गए थे।
4. विपणन में भ्रामकता: भूमि को खरीदारों को एक विकसित परियोजना के आश्वासन के आधार पर बेचा गया था, और लागत इसी आधार पर तय की गई थी। हालांकि, परियोजना अभी भी अविकसित है।
5. समझौते की समस्याएँ: समझौते की प्रक्रिया के दौरान बिल्डर के कर्मचारियों द्वारा अनेक शिकायतें की गई हैं, जिसमें शोषण और अन्याय की घटनाएं सामने आई हैं।
6. अपूर्ण दस्तावेज़: जिन खरीदारों ने रजिस्ट्री पूरी की है, उन्हें केवल आंशिक दस्तावेज ही प्रदान किए गए हैं, जिससे कानूनी और स्वामित्व समस्याएँ उत्पन्न हो रही हैं।
7. रजिस्ट्री और म्यूटेशन की समस्याएँ*: यद्यपि फ्रीहोल्ड संपत्ति की रजिस्ट्री पूरी हो चुकी है, खरीदारों को आवश्यक म्यूटेशन दस्तावेज नहीं दिए जा रहे हैं।
इन समस्याओं के समाधान के लिए मैं निम्नलिखित कार्यवाही की अपील करता हूँ:
समीक्षा और कार्यवाही*: कृपया स्थिति की समीक्षा करें और अनसाल डेवलपर्स के खिलाफ उचित कार्यवाही करें ताकि वे अपनी जिम्मेदारियाँ पूरी करें या जिम्मेदारी निभाने के लिए दंडित किए जाएं।
परियोजना का हस्तांतरण*: यदि अनसाल डेवलपर्स परियोजना को पूरा करने में असमर्थ हैं, तो कृपया किसी सक्षम बिल्डर को विकास की जिम्मेदारी हस्तांतरित करने की संभावना पर विचार करें।
हस्तांतरण के प्रावधान*: कृपया जानकारी दें कि क्या ऐसी कोई प्रावधान या नियम हैं जो परियोजना को नए बिल्डर को सौंपने की अनुमति देते हैं।
मैं आपके कार्यालय से अनुरोध करता हूँ कि इस मामले पर तुरंत कार्रवाई की जाए ताकि प्रभावित खरीदारों के हितों की रक्षा की जा सके और न्याय सुनिश्चित किया जा सके।
