Skip to main content

Kerala High Court bolsters flat owners’ registration rights

A simple directive issued by the Kerala high court has brought into effect the right of owners to register their apartments individually, thereby tremendously enhancing sale ability of apartments.

The directive, issued by Justice A Muhamed Mustaque on a petition by J K Pearl Apartment Owners Association at Pulleppady, also enables setting up a basic framework of rules regarding right of apartment owners on common facilities and maintenance.

In a petition filed through advocate P B Sahasranaman, the association secretary P Krishna Das questioned the registration department's denial of registration of apartments individually as per Kerala Apartment Ownership Act of 1983.

The Act provides for ownership of individual apartment in a building and make such apartment heritable and transferable property. The practice now is to register apartments under the Registration Act, which often leads to a situation where the exact rights of an individual apartment owner are not clearly specified. 

Additionally, the Act facilitates registration of a declaration of the apartment, which describes the common areas and facilities, value of the property and each apartment, percentage of rights of each apartment owner on common facilities and purposes, including voting; restrictions of use, votes required to rebuild, repair, restore, or sell the property; and any other aspect regarding ownership of the apartment. 

The Act provides that in all registration offices, a book called 'Register of Declarations and Deeds of Apartments' should be maintained, along with an index. Through an affidavit, the inspector general of registration claimed that no such register has been provided to the registrar and that government hasn't provided any guidelines on it. 

Declining to agree, Justice Mustaque held, "Every association has a right to register the association in accordance with the Act. The rights of apartment owners forming association and carry out the objectives in terms of the Act cannot be defeated for the reason that the government failed to provide any register." 

The court ordered the government to provide register to all sub-registrars for registering as per the Act within three months. Further, the court directed inspector general of registration to order sub registrars to allow registration as per the Act and record it in the Book One kept as per Registration Act until the government provides registers.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/High-Court-bolsters-flat-owners-registration-rights/articleshow/45600935.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more