MUMBAI: In a recent judgment, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) directed Cidco to register itself as a promoter (Town Development) before MahaRERA within 30 days for its ongoing schemes, akin to a scheme from 2017-18, for the disposal of plots.
It further directed Cidco to register as a promoter (TD) before MahaRERA for its future town development projects initiated under its scheme akin to the scheme in 2017-18, before advertising, selling, or marketing its planned land plots.
The MREAT was hearing an appeal filed by MCHI, Raigad, against a MahaRERA order passed in June 2019. The order stated that the sale transactions effected by Cidco were sales of immovable property, where permissions for development of the immovable property were yet to be given by the planning authority, and such transactions did not fall under the definition of a real estate project.
MCHI filed a complaint with MahaRERA in Oct 2018, citing the non-registration of Cidco as a project promoter with MahaRERA before launching a scheme for the allotment/sale of land plots by inviting tenders. MCHI contended that its members had rights as allottees under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that Cidco was a promoter.
The MREAT stated that it was crystal clear that the roles of Cidco under the said scheme, in the complaint, involved development work as per Section 2(t) of the Act.
Upon reviewing Section 2(zn), it was evident that the chains of development works undertaken by Cidco for the development of raw land into planned/sanctioned layout plots under the said schemes, as a competent planning and town development authority for the purposes of selling/marketing all or some of the said plots, were prima facie real estate projects.
Furthermore, the MREAT observed that it was clear that Cidco was a promoter (TD) for its stated chains of development activities for planning land into plots/sub-plots for the purpose of selling all or some of these plots after their subdivisions into sub-plots.
The contentions of the learned counsel for Cidco were legally not sustainable on account of Section 2(zk)(ii) of the Act.
MREAT also pointed out that the explanation provided under Section 2(zk) clarifies that if the person who sells such plots is a different person, then both shall be deemed to be promoters under the Act. The MREAT observed that it was statutorily mandatory for Cidco to comply with the provisions of the Act, including registering its ongoing and future schemes similar to a scheme in 2017-18.
Cidco must also register itself as a promoter (TD) in compliance with the provisions of the Act before disposal of plots, irrespective of this being in pursuance of the provisions of the MRTP/NMDLR or otherwise, and irrespective of whether Cidco is required to provide on/off-site infrastructures for plot development or otherwise.
Source Homevior.in
