Lucknow: Delay in Possession by the Builder incensed Allottees of Parsvanath Planet

Uttar Pradesh

Vibhuti Khand

Lucknow

Published :

Jul 2017

Updated :

Lucknow: Delay in Possession by the Builder incensed Allottees of Parsvanath Planet

Reported by

Aashish Deep

Legal Review by

Anmol Gupta

Edited by

Anupa Kujur

542

Households affected

People affected

2009

Year started

Land area affected

542

Households affected

People Affected

2009

Year started

Land area affected

Key Insights

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason/Cause of conflict

Township/Real Estate

Conflict Status

Ongoing

Ended

Legal Status

In Court

Region Classification

Urban

Ended

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason/Cause of conflict

Township/Real Estate

Conflict Status

Ongoing

Ended

Legal Status

In Court

Region Classification

Urban

Ended

Summary

Parsvanath Developers launched a multi-storey housing project in Lucknow's Vibhuti Khand around 2006. The project had almost 500 flats, which were all booked. The builder promised to complete the project by 2009 but even after over 10 years the construction was still incomplete. Aggrieved allottees have been frequenting the builder's office to get the possession. Although the builder claims that most of the allottees have been given possession but allottees draw a different picture. According to the allottees, the builder has left the flats incompletely constructed quoting the soared market prices of the raw materials and have been asking the families to contribute by completing the leftover construction.
In 2013, around 250 allottees of Parsvanath Planet went on a day long hunger strike to urge the builders to complete the construction long been overdue since 2009. In 2017, the Supreme court ordered Parsvnath Planet to give possession of habitable flats in two-weeks time to its howm-buyers and provide all assured amenities, including with occupancy certificate, in two months time. The order came after 12 homebuyers petitioned in Supreme court against Parsvnath Planet.
In 2018, allottees again filed cases against the builders in the consumer disputes redressal commission. In the interim order, the National Consumer Disputes redressal commission in New Delhi on July 2019, ordered that a penalty of Rs 50,000 was imposed on Parsvnath developers for delay in responding to the court. The case is ongoing.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

No items found.

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demanding allotment of houses

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Private

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

₹

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

Section 4(f) (Obligation of promoter to execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment in favour of allottee); Section 11(4)(a) (Promoter’s responsibility for all obligations made to the allottees as per the agreement for sale till the conveyance of all the apartments to the allottee);Section 17 (Transfer of title and physical possession of apartment to allottee); Section 18 (Return of amount and compensation if promoter fails to complete the project or hand over possession); Section 19(2) (Right of allottee to know stage-wise time schedule of completion of apartment); Section 19(3) (Right of allottee to claim possession of apartment); Section 19(4) (Right of allottee to claim refund if the promoter is unable to give possession of the apartment in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale)

Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016

Rule 15 (Rate of interest payable by the promoter and the allottee)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Section 2(g) (deficiency of service); Section 2(nnn) (restrictive trade practice); Section 2(r) (unfair trade practice)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Pending

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Case Number

SCDRC COMPLAINT NO. 86 OF 2010 and 32 ORS; NCDRC FIRST APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2015; Supreme Court SLP No.7596/2016; NCDRC CONSUMER CASE NO. 139 OF 2018

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UP, Order dated 25.02.2015: The complainants claimed that the opposite party had stipulated in the agreement for project launched in 2006 that the possession of the apartments would be given within 36+6 (42) months. However, the construction is not completed and the complainants claim this is because the opposite party has invested funds for this project in another and the Lucknow Development Authority has taken coercive measures against the developers as they failed to pay its dues. The opposite party claimed that the delay was due to global recession and the agreement provided for a force majeure clause. They also assured that the developer will compensate for delay and settlement will be made at the time of possession. Since efforts are being made to complete the project, the prayer for delivery of physical possession is premature. They also claimed that the complainants have defaulted in making payments with regard to maintenance, registration etc and possession cannot be handed over till the amount is paid. The SCDRC held that since there is an agreement executed between the parties, they are bound by it. Since the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of flat in accordance with the agreement, there is a deficiency in services. It ordered the opposite party to deliver possession within 2015. However, the complainants were not entitled to any interest as the agreement provided for “likely to be completed” and the term “likely” implies there was no breach. It ordered that the opposite party shall issue statement of accounts to the complainants individually and pay the pending dues with interest at 9% p.a. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, First Appeal No. 241 of 2015, Order dated 20.01.2016: Some complainants filed an appeal against the SCDRC’s order to not allow interest at 24% p.a. as penalty for delay in handing over possession. The NCRDC held that since the developer is not charging higher rate than agreed for delivery of possession of flat, it is not a “restrictive trade practice”. However, it held that they are entitled to get penalty amount for the delayed delivery and modified order of SCRDC to allow compensation of 15,000 p.m. to 20,000 p.m. depending on size of flats. It also extended the due date for handling possession from 42 months to 52 months. Supreme Court SLP No.7596/2016, Order dated 31.03.2017: This petition arose out of final order of NCDRC First Appeal No. 241 of 2015, Order dated 20.01.2016. The petitioners prayed that the developers should be directed to hand over possession of flats in habitable conditions with the occupancy certificate. The developers claimed that this would be done within 3 weeks. Supreme Court SLP No.7596/2016, Order dated 08.05.2017: The Court Commissioner reported that the flats were habitable but certain amenities are yet to be provided. Supreme Court SLP No.7596/2016, Order dated 13.07.2018: The developer claimed that the possession has been handed over and all deficiencies have been removed. The Court directed that each appellant must be given Rs. 1,50,000 per flat towards costs. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, CC/139/2018, Order dated 30.04.2019: This was a case concerning the same property but filed by a different petitioner. However, the builder did not respond to Court leading to the NCRDC imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 for delay in responding to the court. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, CC/139/2018, Order dated 29.01.2020: It observed that neither the written version was filed in two weeks nor was the cost paid within time. The delay of eight months was condoned on a further payment of cost of Rs. 25,000. Next hearing is on 06.01.2021.

Legal Supporting Documents

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Lucknow Development Authority

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Parsvnath Builders

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Allottees of Parsvnath Planet

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN

THE LCW COMMUNITY

Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more. 

Support our work.

Author

Reported by

Aashish Deep

Show more work

Latest updates

East Jaintia Hills

Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela

Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja

Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan

Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad

Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai

Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune

Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat

Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

No items found.

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN

THE LCW COMMUNITY

Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more. 

Support our work.

Land Conflict Watch

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Type of Land

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Land Conflict Watch

Company

Social

Legal

Get in Touch!