I had circulated my note in the opening post in a g-mail group of citizens, quite studied in matters pertaining to KOFA, KAOA, RERA, KSRA, vis-a-vis high-rise apartment complexes, elaborating on how I see the process of submitting the apartment complex where I own a flat and currently reside in, to KAOA, as fairly complete. It generated a lot of debate, the main points raised being as below (in italics), to which I had responded as in regular print.

Point no 1):  An important step is to discard and discredit the theory that undivided interest or share (as builders conveniently morph the word to) is a CONVEYANCE of property. This word isn’t even defined in the statutes as far as I know. Conveyance of immovable property must conform to Sec 21 of Regn Act. It’s as I have been stating only a metric for share payable by each apt owner for the common area upkeep and maintenance and nothing else.

My response: Extracts from Section 21 (4) in The Registration Act, 1908: "Where a document comprises several properties and the description is sufficient as to some, but insufficient as to others, the registering officer must not refuse to accept the document for registration in its entirety; Kesava v. Kannusamy, (1904) 15 Mad LJ 30."

I'd think the above answers the point being made.

Point no 2):  All Apartment Associations in Karnataka must be registered under Cooperative Act or Cooperative Act after implementation of RERA (11-07-2017). It is as per section 11(4)(e) and 17 of RERA Act.

Section 11(4)(e) refers to existing laws local laws in Karnataka for forming  Association of Apartment Purchasers. The existing local laws are – KOFA and KAOA. Under KOFA, associations can be formed under the Cooperative Act or under Companies Act. Thus, as on today, after RERA, Associations could have been formed under KAOA Act or Company Act or Cooperative Act. These three acts are existing laws under the Statue in Karnataka.

My response: I have reproduced as below extracts from RERA and KOFA, from which it is evident that there is a provision even under RERA for an “association of allottees” as per KAOA (apart from as per Companies Act, or Co-op Societies Act), which I believe is best suited for the purpose.

Sec 2 of RERA - Definitions:

(n) “common areas” mean— (i) the entire land for the real estate project or where the project is developed in phases and registration under this Act is sought for a phase, the entire land for that phase;

Sec 11 of RERA - Functions and duties of the promoter:

(e) enable the formation of an association or society or co-operative society, as the case may be, of the allottees, or a federation of the same, under the laws applicable: Provided that in the absence of local laws, the association of allottees, by whatever name called, shall be formed within a period of three months of the majority of allottees having booked their plot or apartment or building, as the case may be, in the project;

(f) execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in favour of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of allottees or competent authority, as the case may be, as provided under section 17 of this Act;

Sec 17 of RERA - Transfer of title:

(1) The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, and hand over the physical possession of the plot, apartment of building, as the case may be, to the allottees and the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, in a real estate project, and the other title documents pertaining thereto within specified period as per sanctioned plans as provided under the local laws

(2) After obtaining the occupancy certificate and handing over physical possession to the allottees in terms of sub-section (1), it shall be the responsibility of the promoter to handover the necessary documents and plans, including common areas, to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, as per the local laws.

Point no 3):  But as per section 17 of RERA, though the apartment purchasers pays for the proportionate Undivided Share of Project land, all such Proportionate UDS of all apartment purchasers must be transferred by the Promoter to the Association of Apartment purchasers formed as per the existing local law mentioned above, by registering the conveyance Deed

But under KAOA, the title of the Proportionate UDS of the Apartment allocated to it in the Registered Declaration is to be registered in the name of the Apartment Purchaser. This basic principle of KAOA contradicts the RERA requirements (Section 17) which is referred above.

My response:

Extracts from Cl 4 of KAOA: Status of apartments - "Each apartment, together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment, shall for all purposes constitute heritable and transferable immovable property within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in the State"

So, very clearly, an apartment and the undivided interest appurtenant to it form a single unit and cannot have different ownership. If the wordings in RERA convey a different meaning, perhaps they need to be corrected.

Extracts from Cl 18 of KAOA: Separate assessment - "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law relating to local authorities, each apartment and its percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment (being an apartment submitted to the provisions of this Act) shall be deemed to be separate property for the purpose of assessment to tax on lands and buildings leviable under such law and shall be assessed and taxed, accordingly; and for this purpose, a local authority shall make all suitable rules to carry out the provisions of this section. Neither the building, the property nor any of the common areas and facilities shall be deemed to be separate property for the purposes of the levy of such tax.”

self-explanatory - property tax not leviable on common property as the levy on SBA (Super Built-up Area) for each flat, collectively covers the tax on common areas too.

Under RERA, however, since individual ownership is supposed to be only for "carpet area", as also the undivided 'interest' on the land is supposed to be vested only with the Co-op Society (as argued by some), property tax on the land as a whole and built-up area like gym, club-house, etc, will become leviable on the Co-op Society, leading to total confusion, and thereby a fertile ground for rent-seeking pursuits of "inspectors". This again, I see as an anomaly, and perhaps needs to be corrected.

Point no 4):  Facilitating forming the Association of Allottees under Cooperative Sector is a compulsion to RERA Authorities is a compulsion for all RERA Registered Apartment Projects.

My Response:  Disagree, based on all of the above.

Point no 5):  An association under KAOA cannot become a "body Corporate" (or juristic person), since it was not formed by members voluntarily, but by the developer.

My Response: Not sure if that court ruling will apply here. Whatever, what if the members subsequently vote unanimously for recognition as "body Corporate"?

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 4 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

At a webinar on the 29th Aug, a noted Mumbai based expert seemed to suggest that the "association of allottees" have the option of submitting a new development (conforming to RERA), to the provisions under KAOA, and not necessarily to those under Co-Op Societies Act, or Companies Act.

He had added that the only short-coming in KAOA is the lack of a regulatory body. But, very much as the panelist from Gujarat stated, the nominated 'regulators' ('competent authority' or whatever you may want to call them) are not doing much of a job there either, with every case anyway landing up in courts.

All of the above seemed to corroborate my views as detailed in my opening post (scroll above).

Subsequent to the seminar, I bothered to study RERA deeper, and came up with the note titled "response to points raised in a debate" (scroll above). In the process, I came up on what I see as serious anomalies as detailed below (more fully detailed in the "response" post):

A) Apartment and it's undivided share as separate properties: As per section 17 of RERA, though the apartment purchasers pay for the proportionate Undivided Share of Project land, all such Proportionate UDS of all apartment purchasers must be transferred by the Promoter to the Association of Apartment purchasers formed as per the existing local law, by registering the conveyance Deed.

(In contrast, as per Cl 4 of KAOA: Status of apartments - "Each apartment, together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment, shall for all purposes constitute heritable and transferable immovable property within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in the State". So, very clearly, an apartment and the undivided interest appurtenant to it form a single unit and cannot have different ownership).

The above conveys the meaning that the "apartment" and it's proportionate "Undivided share of Project land" can be sold, transferred, inherited, etc independent of each other

This is plainly anomalous, and needs to be corrected.

B) Separate assessment: Under RERA, since individual ownership is supposed to be only of the "carpet area", and the ownership of the appurtenant "undivided interest on the land" is supposed to be vested with the Co-op Society, it will lead to a situation where the individual pays property tax on the apartment alone, and the property tax on the land as a whole and built-up areas like gym, club-house, etc, will become leviable on the Co-op Society.

(In contrast, as per Cl 18 of KAOA, extracts from which read as "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law relating to local authorities, each apartment and its percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment (being an apartment submitted to the provisions of this Act) shall be deemed to be separate property for the purpose of assessment to tax on lands and buildings leviable under such law and shall be assessed and taxed, accordingly; and for this purpose, a local authority shall make all suitable rules to carry out the provisions of this section. Neither the building, the property nor any of the common areas and facilities shall be deemed to be separate property for the purposes of the levy of such tax.” Essentially, property tax levy on SBA (Super Built-up Area) for each flat, collectively covers the tax on common areas too).

Very clearly, the RERA "carpet area" based assessment will lead to total confusion, and therewith provide a fertile ground for rent-seeking pursuits of "inspectors".

This again, I see as an anomaly, and needs to be corrected.

All of these have caused to reiterate my view that KAOA, with it's condominium concept enabling self-governance, is the most suited to managing high-rise apartment complexes, compared to any other route where you land up being led by the nose by some "in-competent authority" (and being charged for it heavily too).

Also, all of the 'regulatory' function is needed mostly at the development stage, which is being taken care of by the now duly empowered RERA. Beyond that, there is not much to do, and whatever little is to be done can be left to the General Body of the owners to carry out, and thereafter to manage their affairs by themselves, guided by the rules and bye-laws.

Perhaps the government can nominate an official in RERA itself, as the "Competent Authority", to carry out the following functions: 

• a) scrutinising the documents submitted as per Form A (Deed of Declaration, etc) for conformity with the requirements under the Act;
• b) issue a certificate with a serial number, and notify the Municipal and Revenueauthorities of the change in property ownership;
• c) scrutinise Form B's as and when they are submitted, and notify the Municipal and Revenue authorities of the change in property ownership;
• d) maintain a record of all of the above.

Since the functions are very few and limited, only a nominal one-time fee may be charged for the service.

Besides, quite like a very senior lawyer in the city (who also was the Charter President of the association in one of the earliest multi-storied housing complexes, where he resides even today) opined, "no administration can be more transparent than that by a democratically elected 'Managing Committee' functioning according to the guidelines prescribed by a vigilant General Body of members".

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 5 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

All of these have now gained an added significance in view of Col Mathew (a veteran of many court battles) having filed a fresh PIL in Karnataka High Court (No 10669-2019 admitted in Nov 2019, and notices sent to respondents - Chief Sec, GoK; and Registrar of Co-op Societies),

the "prayer" seeking to declare that:

A. The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, is unconstitutional;

B. Karnataka Apartment Ownership Rules, 1974, is unconstitutional;

C. Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 is unconstitutional;

D. Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1975 is unconstitutional;

E. Quash the Circular dated 30.11.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent at Annexure F;

F. Provide such and other suitable directions/reliefs which on account of all the grounds raised herein deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.

And, "interim prayer" seeking as below:

In the aforesaid circumstances the Petitioner humbly prays that, pending consideration of the present writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Circular dated 30.11.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent at Annexure F pending disposal of this petition. 

To a query from me Col Mathew has responded as below: 

It's not my view that KSRA society is the only one for apartment owners associations. They may choose to form a cooperative society or a company. Both cooperative societies and companies are unsuitable due their complexity and costs of administering. The Karnataka government has said that cooperative societies are clogged due to government interference! RBI has suggested excluding housing cooperatives from KSS, 1997 for the reason that they will be vulnerable to misappropriation, mismanagement and manipulation. KAOA even if one tries to empower the association since, these are not cooperative societies, the registrar has no law to guide him in ensuring statutory compliance. 

Above is self-explanatory. In view of this development, I have recommended to the BAF (as a federation representing over 800 apartment complexes) to deliberate over the matter, take a stand, and perhaps implead in the case as it deems fit. Actually, the PIL can be viewed as an opportunity to sort out the vexatious issue for the benefit of all the stake-holders involved. 

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 3 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

This note by Mr  Muralidhar Rao which is a forward of a draft by Col Mathew Thomas seeks to take us all back to square one. I am sure some of us remember his presentation to all of us as at Adigas in jan 19.  The views have been debated earlier and rejected. They are like I say what we call we call ‘situating the appreciation’. 

The views of Col Mathews are one sided and ignores many realities and laws. They suffer from a lot of biases from an era gone by. 

Government interference with coop societies is what has led to the constitutional amdts and even the KSS Act 97. Structures for tackling corruption are solid and if implemented and enforced this malaise should not be a given. Corruption in any system needs tackling and is a sad reality of our land. It has to be sorted out if we are to evolve as a nation. 

The reason why legislators excluded housing assns from KSS act needs research and examination. There would be a reason. Possibly something to do with stamp duty and regn of Immovables that Karnataka was trying to deal with in respect of coop hsg societies till law was amended in 2010-12. But that’s a hunch. 

The KSS Act predates the 97th Amdt and is a forebearer of what’s been done by constitutional amdt for whole country. That is, it is primarily legislated and seeks to reduce govts interference and regulatory role of registrar and pass that role onto a federation that would get created to oversee coop hsg societies. ROCS saddled as they have been with ROS functions passed in by IGR seeks to avoid addl responsibilities as MR Prassana Kumar argues in the KRERA meeting. 

“ In the post  Independence period, crores of rupees were spent on popularizing the Cooperative Movement and make it a successful venture. The Central Planning Commission realized that the cooperative sector failed with much less drastic change that was expected. The effort and the funds invested went in vain and as this was realized, the Ardhanareshwaran Committee was formed, The Committee in its report in 1987 after studying declared that the Cooperative Movement has failed in the Country because of the heightened Intervention of the Government in the affairs of the Cooperatives.

Realizing the need for the growth of the sector that promotes the economic development of the people requiring the voluntary participation in the affairs the planning commission formed another Commission under the able leadership of Sri Choudhary Brahmaprakash, This Commission presented a model Cooperatives Act in 1991. The Central Government circulated this model Act to all states with an advice to incorporate the same as it ensures more power to the members, more member participation and less government intervention in the affairs of the Cooperatives. Karnataka came out with The Karnataka Souharda Sahakara Act, 1997 framed on the lines of the Model Act given by Sri Choudhary Brahamaprakash committee.”

How KSRA 60 can be vested with land is clarified in the act and even the law has been settled by the Supreme Court Illaichi Devi judgement. Societies under SRA have many lacunae and cannot manage large society management. Given various reasons including large developments, ksra framework cannot seek to handle management of large structures as it doesn’t have the necessary regulatory and redressal framework that is a necessity of today. 

BAF than take us all back to square one must invest it’s efforts in RERA realities than drag Bangalore and Karnataka back to the days of no enforcement and Implementation of laws. They must IMO lead not to support Col Mathews contention in WP admitted but must use its resources to challenge and get the law clarified in the light of rera and need for proper conveyance of immovables to their many associations. Than go by Col Mathews theories we must go with what Maha activists state and what causes that state in Bombay, Pune, Thane etc to be 90 percent cooperative societies. They are even using deemed conveyance provisions of MOFA abandons the condominium framework and migrating to coop hsg societies. Some 50000 applications are under process for this. 

This move to reintroduce issues that have been debated and rejected is a retrograde step out of sync with times when Apartment complexes of very large sizes are skyrocketing. 

It ignores new realities. We need to look ahead not back basking in the inertia that has plagued housing sector in Karnataka. 

Whoever had said anything else in the past, I had always maintained that KAOA itself was best suited to the matters of ownership and management of housing societies, after effecting necessary correctives to the few existing lacunae. The matter of anomalies in RERA, raised by me (refer post titled "KAOA best suited - - - ", has not been commented upon.

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 3 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

I have read your comments in the blog. There are following 10 Points on which there is a necessity of the Hon'ble High Court Decision. A good Writ Petition/PIL is necessary. 

(1) After RERA, none of the provisions of any Local Acts/Central Acts, relating to Real Estate Activities/business can continue if such provisions contradict RERA Act provisions.

(2) KAOA was enacted for the specific purpose of giving legal title ownership of Apartment by making provision for UDS. It means that there was no provision to own an apartment in a building as per Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Registration Act, 1908 (Basic Acts for owning a plot of land or independent House/Bungalow) until 1970. Hence legislation of KAOA was necessary. This was removed by legislating MAOA/KAOA in Maharashtra/Karnataka. These two acts also have the inbuilt  provisions of forming Association of Apartment Purchasers.in addition to owning the Apartment by the purchaser like owning a plot or independent building. The purpose of such Association to deal with connected matters of living in the Apartment along with other apartment purchasers like maintenance of common area and facilities. There is also provision for living of tenants in the Act. 

(3) Is it possible to own the Apartment in a building by not following all the 27 provisions of KAOA/MAOA, the acts specifically enacted for the basic purpose of owning the Apartment in a multi-storied building. The High Court can only decide on it. The High Court can only give verdict whether following all 27 sections of KAOA/MAOA is necessary to become absolute owner of an Apartment in a Building or is it possible to become owner of the Apartment by following few sections of KAOA or is it possible to become owner of an apartment without registering the basic document, Deed of Declaration. 

(4) In Maharashtra Bombay High Court has given the judgment that following the provisions of MAOA is necessary to become owner of the Apartment with legal title and forming Association of Apartment Purchasers. 

(5) If the provisions of MAOA are not followed as per the Acts/Rules on it, the purchaser of Apartment will not become the legal owner of the Apartment. In such a situation  the Apartment purchasers can form Cooperative Housing Society of Apartment Purchasers. There are many judgments of Bombay High Court in this regard.

(6) In Karnataka, the High Court has clearly given judgment, that there is no provision in the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 for registration of ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT PURCHASERS. What will be the fate of all existing Apartment Owners Associations registered under KSRA, 1960?

(7) Is there any link between KOFA and KAOA? If the answer is YES, is it necessary to link the missing provisions between KOFA and KAOA?

(8) Can KAOA be implemented without Competent Authority?  If Competent Authority is necessary, what is his role in implementing KAOA?

(9) Can 18 sections of KOFA be implemented without Authority/Officer? Is it necessary to have a Competent Authority for administering KOFA?

(10) How to remove the total mess created (in Sale/Purchase/construction/Registration of Deed of Apartment/Forming Association) in the last 44.5 years by improper implementation of KOFA and KAOA.

Only, the Honourable High Court of Karnataka can give its verdict after hearing the appropriate writ Petition or PIL. 

My comments: Quite a few valid points. But, nuanced stances pertaining to most have already been brought out in my opening and 2nd posts (scroll above to check). Also, I doubt submitting/ switching to Co-op Societies Act can solve any of the basic problems. Like I have stated earlier too, KAOA itself is best suited to the matters of ownership and management of housing societies, after effecting necessary correctives to the few existing lacunae. The anomalies in RERA, pertaing to "carpet area" basis of allocation of "undivided share" (refer post titled "KAOA best suited - - - ", scrolling above), perhaps need correction too.

PS: Since the blog-site is currently under upgradation, PRAJA is currently not in a position to allow fresh member registrations. The inconvenience is regretted.

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 4 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Col Mathew has subsequently clarified that the first petition was withdrawn on the suggestion from the bench to file as a Writ instead of a PIL. The writ is admitted and notices issued to both respondents. Neither respondent has filed counter. From reports available it appears that the government is frantically trying to come up a new law. 

He adds "My writ does NOT seek to promote KSRA. It questions the constitutionality of KAOA and KOFA. Secondly, it seeks to ensure that the fundamental right of home buyers to form associations of their choice is not abridged."

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 3 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

The veteran I had referred to in my post of 12th Sept, commented as below, in a WhatsApp group where I too am a member, though relatively inactive:

Maharashtra (and Gujarat) has, after Rera, made cooperative society or a company mandatory. Thus common areas are ‘conveyed’ through a regd deed in the name of the society. If builder doesn’t do so, for whatever reasons, then they have legislated deemed conveyance of land title. 

Individual apartment ownership would be through the procedure as appears to be getting notified above.  

With the Supreme Court judgement (not sure which judgment is being referred to here) the saleability and heritability gets reinforced. This also virtually renders KAOA as meaningless, and one gets act with proper regulation and enforceable. 

In Karnataka we are dumped in an unregulated and unenforced act KAOA. The only beneficiary are the builder and probably few of their proxies. 

Govt of Karnataka is ceased of issues and is taking steps to handle post RERA constitutional necessities. Builders and some with vested interests work hard to prevent RERA too remaining unenforceable. They want to let the old thrive.

In response, I had reiterated that neither PRAJA, nor BAF, is asking for repeal of RERA. A properly empowered regulatory body (particularly for the development stage) has been long overdue, and hopefully, RERA is evolving into that, even if it's not happening as speedily as one would have liked it.

And, as to the question of "KAOA becoming meaningless"", in my post of 9th Sept titled "KAOA best suited - - " (scroll above to read), I had pointed out that "a noted Mumbai based expert seemed to suggest that the "association of allottees" have the option of submitting a new development (conforming to RERA), to the provisions under KAOA, and not necessarily to those under Co-Op Societies Act, or Companies Act."

Further, going by what is stated in the veteran's note, if housing associations have necessarily to be registered as Co-op Societies or as Companies, the following questions arise:

a) If the number of shares allotted to the buyer of (say) flat no A-102 in a complex is (say) 123 (jointly for the flat and undivided share of land), I expect it will have to be clearly tagged together, since sale/ tranfer of shares identified just as 123 numbers, will not specify a particular flat.

b) Also, I expect the arrangement will call for the municipality levying it's tax (based on the local structure) for the property as a whole on the Co-op Society, and the same being collected by the Society from the share-holders on the basis of individual shares held. 

c) Further, in the case of row houses/ villa's within in a complex, additional shares will have to be allocated for the payments made for the exclusive enjoyment of the land. Likewise in the case of pent-houses, as also car parking slots. Norms for these will have to be enunciated.

I expect the logic of the above is clear, and the "activists" will pursue them. Also, Co-op Housing Societies have been in existence in cities like Mumbai from long, and I expect they have figured out the way to address the issue. Would help if someone can enlighten us on how it's done. 

All said and done, I do appreciate that in the case of very large complexes, the Co-op Society/ Company route could perhaps provide the way forward. But, in the case of smaller complexes, I should think the KAOA is good enough for day to day management (post development - check my post titled "KAOA best suited - -" of 9th Sept, scrolling above), since it will also avoid their being burdened with filing returns, and paying huge fees for hardly any work involved.

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 3 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

After going through my blog, Col Mathew mailed me as below (in italics):

Perhaps, you may like to rethink your understanding of both RER Act and KAOA.

DoD registration does not convey title since it is not a conveyance deed as per the Transfer of Property Act.

Under KAOA, there is NO transfer of title, although the Act claims to be providing marketable title.

Both DoD and DoA are self-declarations. So, is Form B. The promoter is owner of unsold apartments. The Act states, “sole owner or all owners”. 

There is no seller and buyer described as parties to the sale transaction.

DoD does NOT mention sale consideration paid by each and every buyer. 

Under Section 17 of RER Act, two conveyances are to be done by the promoter, one to individual apartment buyer and the other to the association of buyers. The first conveys title to the apartment together with its UDS. The second conveys title to common areas together with UDS of buyers therein. 

UDS is a notional concept to indicate joint ownership of area of the land and construction on the property. 

UDS does NOT convey title.

Surely, you would not purchase a property if there were no sale deed.

Where is sale deed mentioned in KAOA? 

So, there is no anomaly. KAOA is inconsistent with RER Act and the central Act prevails.

Most people have misunderstood these laws. The confusion affects all of us.

Perhaps, Col Mathew understands law better than me. But, I do not agree with many of the points he has raised - also, most of them have already been addressed by me in my earlier posts. However, I am incorporating his views here, so that when and if the matter goes before the court, a ready reference point is available for parties concerened.

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

All said and done, I do appreciate that in the case of very large complexes, the Co-op Society/ Company route could perhaps provide the way forward. But, in the case of smaller complexes, I should think the KAOA is good enough for day to day management 

I had mentioned as above in my post of 19th Sept (scroll above to check). Now, in the case of complexes over 5 acres in spread, the law requires that roads/ passages, CA sites, parks etc (open to public), be incorporated in them. This has apparently been enforced in the case of a Brigade cluster in J P Nagar, and L & T South City too (I am not too sure of the details). That being the case, wouldn't it be better, if the developer, in the case of large developments, allocates a separate common C A site incorporating all utilities (costs apportioned on SBA basis), club-house, gym, school, etc, with membership/ fees at concessional rates to buyers of property in the complex? The C A site can also include commercial spaces like offices, hotel etc, the other regular sites being exclusively for multi-storied residential apartments. This way, each apartment block can have its own association, registered under KAOA, and the C A site complex can perhaps be owned by a company, with each of the associations owning shares in the company in proportion to their total SBA.

Whatever, the idea of a Co-op society doesn't appeal to me.

Further, RERA applies only to complexes with 8 or more apartments, and on land 500 sqM or more in extent. For development of smaller ownership apartment complexes, KOFA supposedly remains valid even as of now.

Whatever, quite as an eminent lawyer observed during a recent webinar, all of these are still evolving, more so with the recent adoption of RERA, buyers becoming more aware and demanding, etc, and improvements can perhaps be incorporated in the laws as we go along. This blog is compiled in that spirit.

Muralidhar Rao

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments