Property tax notices of Rs 9 crore issued to 20 defaulters in Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Siswan Paradise Private Limited, Emerging India Real Assets and Emerging India Housing Corporation to pay Rs 2.72 lakh to a complainant for violating Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. The realtor had advertised and accepted money from complainant for a farm house in Siswan village before getting necessary permissions from the government authorities. Navdeep Singh, a resident of Amritsar, had stated in his complaint that he was approached by the representative of Emerging India, who told him that Siswan Paradise Private Limited, that is its sister concern, is selling a farmhouse at Siswan in the proposed project, which was duly approved by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (Gmada), Punjab government and all basic amenities like roads, water lines, sewerage would be provided. He was then informed that he won a cottage farmhouse in a draw of lots held on June 14, 2012, at Chandigarh and that its allotment of 605 square yard had been made by them. It was submitted that the total sale consideration of the farmhouse was Rs 6.50 lakh and the complainant gave first installment of Rs 2.50 lakh. He said that he was shocked when he saw a public notice in a newspaper issued by Gmada, informing the general public that farmhouses were being sold without taking development licence from the authority. He approached the realtors seeking refund of the amount, to which they allegedly refused. Then a legal notice was sent to them, but to no avail. No one turned up from the Siswan Paradise Private Limited, while the counsel for Emerging India stated that they have not sold the farmhouse in question and were only marketing the project. It was stated that they did not receive any payment from the complainant nor did they issue any receipt. They also mentioned that Siswan Paradise was never its sister concern and there was no documentary proof to that effect. The forum, after hearing both the sides, held that it can be safely concluded that the realtors while advertising and offering the proposed project to the prospective buyers, including the complainant, did not have the requisite permissions.
Tags : News/Views