Thursday, July 25, 2024

MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Lodha’s New Cuffe Parade Project in Mumbai

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has clarified that it is not within its purview to oversee construction beyond the registered project boundaries. This decision came as MahaRERA dismissed a complaint against Macrotech Developers, popularly known as Lodha, concerning their New Cuffe Parade project in Wadala, Mumbai.

The complaint, filed by a homebuyer from Lodha Dioro within the New Cuffe Parade project, alleged that the developer initiated construction on open space without obtaining the required two-thirds majority consent from homebuyers.

The dispute revolved around Section 14(2) of the RERA Act, which stipulates that significant changes, such as alterations in the plan or specifications of a building within the project, require prior written consent from two-thirds of the allottees.

The complainant, who purchased a flat in Lodha Dioro, claimed that construction on the open space was unauthorized and sought a halt to the construction, expressing concerns about the impact on property value and obstructed views.

In response, the developers argued that they had a separate RERA registration for the new construction and were proceeding with all necessary permissions. They also contended that the agreement for sale explicitly outlined the phased construction process.

The MahaRERA order emphasized that its authority is limited to monitoring construction within the registered project boundaries. Section 14(2) does not mandate developer approval from two-thirds of allottees when construction extends beyond the initially demarcated area at the time of registration.

The order highlighted the complainant’s failure to provide evidence supporting the violation of RERA provisions by the developer. MahaRERA Chairman Ajoy Mehta clarified that RERA’s role differs from that of local planning authorities, and for alleged building regulation violations, individuals should approach the relevant local planning authority. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed on these grounds.

Related Articles

Latest Articles