SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. NISHA BANU, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
M/s. Colorhome Developers Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Kanchipattinam Villa Owners Association Karai - Respondent
C.M.S.A. No. 66 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ralph V. Manohar
For the Respondent: L. Senthil Kumar

Developers must register ongoing projects under RERA when promised amenities are not completed, establishing accountability and compliance within real estate regulation.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 2(zk)(v), 3, 11, 12, 13, 14(3) - Appeal by Developer against orders of TNRERA regarding registration of project - Allegations of failure to provide promised amenities and ongoing project status raised - Court upheld Appellate Tribunal's findings that developer is liable to register project and complete promised amenities. (Paras 2, 10, 19)

(B) Legal Obligations of Developers - When a developer advertises amenities and fails to provide them, the project is considered ongoing and must be registered under RERA. (Paras 10, 20)

Facts of the case:
M/s. Colorhome Developers filed an appeal against TNRERA's directive to register the Kanchipattinam residential project, claimed completion of layout project without mandatory amenities, creating a gated community. Payment for amenities was also a contentious point.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed TNRERA’s conclusion that incomplete amenities necessitated registration under RERA, emphasizing developer’s responsibilities.

Issues: The main issues were the classification of the project, the statutory obligations of developers, and the adequacy of completion regarding promised amenities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that failing to provide promised amenities renders a project ongoing, thereby necessitating registration under the RERA Act for accountability.

Result: Appeal dismissed; appellant must comply with registration and complete promised amenities.

Table of Content
1. developer's duties and project registration requirements. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. substantial questions of law regarding project classification. (Para 2 , 6)
3. obligations of the builder and offered amenities evaluation. (Para 5 , 7)
4. findings on ongoing project status and registration necessity. (Para 10 , 18)
5. court affirms necessity of compliance with regulatory directions. (Para 12)
6. relevant provisions under real estate act for dispute resolution. (Para 19)
7. court's dismissal and direction for compliance. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

J. NISHA BANU, J.

1. This appeal is filed by Developer/builder praying to set aside the order dated 17.11.2023 passed in Appeal No.60 of 2023 on the file of Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT), whereby, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Regulatory Authority in C.No.66 of 2022, dated 02.03.2023 on the file of Tamil nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA).

2. The developer/builder raise the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this CMSA.

(i) When the project is developed only as a residential layout project as per the approval granted by the competent authorities and exempted from registration under Rule 2(h) (iii) whether the authority under the Act is empowered to direct registration of the project under Section 3 of the Act as a gated community project.

(ii) Whether the promoter could be made liable to register the entire project as a gated community, when the purchasers of the plots have constructed their Villas by third party builder.

(iii) Whether the promoter could be held liable under the provisions of Section 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the RERA Act, when the promoter has not constructed the Villas in the project.

3.....

(a) In this case, the complainant is M/s.Kanchipattinam Villa Owners" Association KARAI. They submitted a complaint before the TNRERA against the developer/builder viz., M/s.Colorhome Developers Pvt Ltd in respect of the residential layout called Kanchipattinam situated at Vedal Village, Karai, Kanchipuram, stating that they are builder of the Villas in the layout.

(b) It is stated that the respondent-developer advertised the project as Gated Community in media stating that the residential project is formed in 120 Acres of land with all world class 50 plus amenities. Among other amenities, 16 amenities which were promised to be provided to the gated community project within one year from the date of signing of the construction agreement, the respondent failed to provide any amenities to the buyers till date of the complaint. The said 16 amenities are as follows:-

(i) Ultra Modern Club House which includes (a) Swimming Pool (b) A/C Gym © Indoor Games (d) Badminton Court

(ii) Community Hall

(iii) Play School

(iv) Super Market

(v) Parks (with Yoga Hut & Senior Citizen Area)

(vi) Volleyball Court

(vii) Basketball Court

(viii) Cricket Pitch

(ix) Jogging Track

(x) Common Lighting

(xi) Underground Drainage/Sewerage Treatment Plan (STP)/Water

(xii) Underground water storming

(xiii) Underground Electricity Cables along with Phase E.B.Supply will be provided. Power backup vide Diesel Generator shall be provided for Community Hall and Club House.

(xiv) Drinking water pipelines.

(xv) Outer Compound wall with appropriate gates, utmose safety and hi-tech security (24x7) shall be provided for the project. However the part of the second part is prohibited to fence the schedule mentioned plot as the party of the first part shall demark the measurements and boundaries during the execution of the sale deed.

(xvi) Street lights with possible solar power/necessary power backups at the discretion of the party of first part shall be provided.

(c) The complaint also states that the project has not been completed till date; many construction activities are pending including club house and other amenities mentioned above. But the respondent had failed to register the project with TNRERA and has not obtained any exemption and hence the respondent is co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top