LEX INSIGHT

  A Client's Struggle: The Gen esis of the Legal Challenge Our firm was recently engaged to protect a client's apartment ownership in a multi-tower complex, a task made particularly intricate by the project's layered structure. Our client's specific ownership comprises a 1.175% undivided interest in 18.984 cents of property, a 1463 sq ft apartment, and a dedicated car space. This complex, permitted in 2006 and developed across 449.39 cents, features a scheme with distinct zones, one dedicated solely to residential towers. A core aspect of this project is the shared enjoyment of internal roads and common areas by all residents. Centralized facilities such as water treatment, waste management, fire safety, and power backup serve the entire complex, alongside a vast basement spanning 552.59 cents that houses both individual parking and common facility areas. A key part of the project's design involves transferring land for common facilities, areas, and roads to an Owne...

A Client's Struggle: The Gen esis of the Legal Challenge Our firm was recently engaged to protect a client's apartment ownership in a multi-tower complex, a task made particularly intricate by the project's layered structure. Our client's specific ownership comprises a 1.175% undivided interest in 18.984 cents of property, a 1463 sq ft apartment, and a dedicated car space. This complex, permitted in 2006 and developed across 449.39 cents, features a scheme with distinct zones, one dedicated solely to residential towers. A core aspect of this project is the shared enjoyment of internal roads and common areas by all residents. Centralized facilities such as water treatment, waste management, fire safety, and power backup serve the entire complex, alongside a vast basement spanning 552.59 cents that houses both individual parking and common facility areas. A key part of the project's design involves transferring land for common facilities, areas, and roads to an Owners...

  Setting the Stage The stipulation governing the transfer of undivided proportionate title to the owner's association  [i] under the real estate law has consistently been a subject of intense debate. The recent Government Order [ii] sanctioning the payment of property tax in the individual names of owners has further intensified the ongoing discourse.   This post aims to discuss the myth and reality behind contentious debates.   To understand the nuances, real-world examples may often help highlight complexities than theoretical explanations.   Hence, a case study method is attempted here.  Read the case under the following subheading. A real estate scheme This residential apartment complex, comprising several residential blocks, is developed on 552.59 cents of land. The individual blocks are named for illustrative purposes as (1) Block A, (2) Block B, (3) Block C, (4) Block D, and (5) Block E.  Each block is situated in approximately 20 cents....

  Joyalukkas Gold Tower Vazhakkala, the first property to be submitted to the Kerala Apartment Ownership Act 1983 A prelude Protection of Apartment Ownership Rights is fundamental for a peaceful apartment living.   A  corresponding duty is constitutionally distributed among the central and state governments.   The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, passed by the Union, and the apartment ownership laws enacted by the states formed the basis of the legal infrastructure.   It is trite that both can coexist, however, a  few states in the country fell into a pitfall, due to poor draftsmanship, and Kerala was no exception. The Kerala Experience The provision regarding the application of the ownership law [i] gave room to various types of interpretations.   The provision required “ …the sole owner or all of the owners of which submit the same to the provisions of this Act by duly executing and registering a declaration …” . The combined e...

  On 28 th August 2022, the Noida twin tower named Apex and Ceyna were reduced into absolute nothing except for about 55000 tons of debris, following its demolition.   Apex and Ceyna housed 900 apartment units, with a construction cost, estimated at 90 crores and market price of 700 crores, approximately.   The demolition followed a judgement of the Apex Court.   The Supreme Court [i] has cited three major reasons for arriving at its conclusions for demolition of the twin tower, namely (1) Violation of the distance requirements under the building regulations, (2) Consent of the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) not obtained before the construction, and (3) Collusion and illegal Construction.   This Article focuses only on the second reason, ‘Failure to obtain Consent of RWA’. The Apex Court found the consent of the individual flat owners of the original fifteen towers, individually or through the Resident Welfare Association (RWA), was a necessary requi...