Transfer of Flat After issue of notice u/s. 6(1) of SAFEMA is null & void

0 Comments

1. vswami says:

   Add-0n: To further assist / breifly focus >

   To briefly focus: In the judgment no mention is made or are recorded any submissions / arguments having genesis in certain basically relevant facts; as such, no way to know, whether the property (i.e. the unit named ‘flat’ (aprtment’ ?) in dispute is, – a property actually submitted , as warranted, to the provisions of the special enactment (called, in short, the KAOA (?) ). Further, if that was duly conveyed and registered, after strictly complying with the mandates / requirements of that enactment by the builder/seller and the first set of buyers ? If factually and actually that were not so, then, according to a rigid but seemingly right view, as per the law, the property will not qualify as one which is ‘transferable’ ( or ‘inheritable’) as contemplated by / spelt out in the said enactment. Consequently, any other related transaction, including forfeiture thereof by a third party (even it be government / its competent authority as is the case herein) can only be considered to be infructuous ; and if made, can only be legally void , and ineffective for all connected purposes. In other words, that would bring into being an unenviable or unpleasant situation, almost akin to the mythological ‘trishanku’ – a misery of the worst type, verging on perennial sin.

     Reply

   November 3, 2012 at 3:13 pm
2. vswami says:

   To further assist/briefly focus:

   In the judgment no mention is made or are recorded any submissions / arguments having genesis in certain basically relevant facts; as such, no way to know, whether the property (i.e. the unit named ‘flat’ (aprtment’ ?) in dispute is, – a property actually submitted , as warranted, to the provisions of the special enactment (called, in short, the KAOA (?) ). Further, if that was duly conveyed and registered, after strictly complying with the mandates / requirements of that enactment by the builder/seller and the first set of buyers ? If factually and actually that were not so, then, according to a rigid but seemingly right view, as per the law, the property will not qualify as one which is ‘transferable’ ( or ‘inheritable’) as contemplated by / spelt out in the said enactment. Consequently, any other related transaction, including forfeiture thereof by a third party (even it be government / its competent authority as is the case herein) can only be considered to be infructuous ; and if made, can only be legally void , and ineffective for all connected purposes. In other words, that would bring into being an unenviable or unpleasant situation, almost akin to the mythological ‘trishanku’ – a misery of the worst type, verging on perennial sin.

     Reply

   November 3, 2012 at 3:09 pm
3. vswami says:

   The SC judgment delivered in favour of the competent authority has uhpheld its action in the forefeiture of house property being a ‘unit’ of a bilding, as opposed to an independent and exclusively owned house.

   It is noted that,this is yet another court case in a series of its kind, in which the peculiarly distinct characteristics of ‘units’ of a building,- as distinct from any other property ordinarily governed by the common law, that is – Transfer of Property Act,- have not been specially raised and argued; hence not gone into by the court in settling the dispute.

   For knowing and appreciating in proper light the intricacies / material implications of the above referred aspect,the several related inputs in public domain might be of assistance.

     Reply

   November 2, 2012 at 5:08 pm