Friday, 21 October 2016



In a series of great court orders that may came as a relief to thousands of housing societies languishing while not a conveyance deed the patron court recently command that a developer will now not hold on to conveyance on the grounds that he must perform any construction on the plot. Quite eightieth of the housing societies in Mumbai don't have the conveyance deed for his or her building, the document transferring the plot to the housing society or the flat purchasers. Most developers don't execute the conveyance deed as they need to use the improvement potential of the plot or any extra construction rights on the plot in future.

In 3 recent cases that had return up before the patron court, developers argued that their rights to any open area or any development are maintained by the developers. The court not solely dominated in favor of the society in every case however additionally cuffed a significant penalty on the developers for defaulting on conveyance.

How to recover property once it's unified and divided with adjacent property

A owner of a plot in possession of the correctty for quite fifteen years and with proper documents, applies for a contemporary computerised Khata certificate. Abundant to his shock, in reply, he gets a notice from the Revenue department speech communication that his property is already unified with the adjacent property and additionally divided and new pattas issued to the new house owners. What will he do to recover his property?The case involving B. Ullasavelan and therefore the Collector of Kancheepuram went like this. Mr. Ullasavelan purchased the land measure 50cents and was granted patta in 1991. He was in possession of the property and had been paying the property tax. In 2007, he applied for encumbrance certificate from the amount between 1981 and 2007 and obtained the certificate. Once he afterwards applied to the Tahsildar for a contemporary computerised patta in his name, he was afraid to receive a notice.

Not solely was his application rejected, he was told that his land measure fifty cents had been unified with adjacent property and divided. Additionally, pattas were granted in respect of these sub-divisions in favor of different people. Mr. Ullasavelan right away submitted an attractiveness to the Revenue Divisional officer with a replica to the once no notice was issued to the client who lawfully purchased the property, it amounts to deprivation of his right to property.

Collector and gave a criticism to the commissioner of Police. He additionally filed a legal document petition to quash the proceedings of the Tahsildar and direct the tahsildar to cancel the unification of the land and resultant subdivisions. He additionally prayed that a computerised patta be issued to him.

Hearing the ntargumes and researching the records, the Court discovered that the petitioner had valid possession of his property and therefore the chitta and adangal register carried his name until 1988. It additionally discovered that on studying of the relevant records, the property was incorrectly enclosed within the subdivisions and therefore the tahsildar’s order was passed with none notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the court dominated that the way during which his subdivisions were created cannot be sustained and therefore the order issued by the tahsildar is against the law and capricious exercise of powers.

A direction was issued to the respondents to issue computerised pattas within the name of the petitioner among an amount of four weeks from the date of receipt of a replica of the order.

Ratio Decidendi

“When no notice was issued to the petitioner before unification and subdivisions are created within the property lawfully purchased by the petitioner, it amounts to deprivation of his right to property. Thus the order passed while not affording any chance amounts to facie illegal and capricious exercise of power and prone to be quashed.


Company Law
Joint Venture
Legal Documentation
Property agreement
Real estate lawyers