Thousands and thousands of flat purchasers of authorised buildings in Gr. Mumbai limits, are residing in age old buildings without Occupation Permission for over 15 to 20 years. With the result those societies are paying practically double the property taxes and water charges to the Municipal Corporation for decades.
According to a report published in Loksatta dt. 28.5.2003, about 19000 buildings in Gr. Mumbai limits are Without Occupation Permission. As per said press note, a delegation headed by the President of Mumbai Pradesh Congress, Shri Gurudasji Kamat met the Honble. Chief Minister of Maharashtra to solve this problem; wherein the Chief Minister had promised to call report from the Secretary-UD within 15 days. The details of said report are not known to public till this date.
Prior to that, during SENA-BJP Govt. a Committee headed by the Honble. Minister Shri Prakashji Mehta also made lot of efforts on this issue, however no concrete solution was emerged. So far, Four Committees made their possible efforts to solve this stalemate. It seems that neither State Govt. nor the Municipal Corporation have taken this burning issue seriously, and thousands of hapless residents are left high and dry for no fault of them.
Surprisingly the State Govt. now made it mandatory to submit Occupation Permission for the registration of any documents of transfer of ownership; which to my knowledge, was never there for centuries. This silent blow has thrown away all legal owners of property units in frying pan and at the mercy of Registration authority. This has put up a full stop for any transfer of premises for those residing in a building without Occupation Permission. The State Govt. should realise that when its roll is limited to recovery of Stamp Duty and Registration charges then why to create unnecessary hardship and add salt to injury. This novel policy emerged from of super bureaucratic brain should be withdrawn forthwith.
On the backdrop of the facilities and incentives being offered to Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, the misery of these unfortunate occupants of authorised buildings is beyond imagination. It is time now for the State Govt. as well as the Municipal Corporation to take pragmatic and lenient view before the situation becomes vehement and goes out of control.
May be due to some political or Govt. pressure, The Municipal Corporation had issued a departmental policy Circular based on study of 166 out of 2200 files, under no. CHE/1600/D.P./Gen, dt. 8.1.2002 offering some incentives for issue of pending Occupation Permissions, by curtailing some of the requirements, but retaining main demand of revenue recovery. It was also informed to all zonal offices of the Building Proposal Department, to give vide publicity to those guide lines so that the aggrieved Co-operative Hsg. Societies will come forward for issue of pending Occupation permissions. Mainly due to demand of payment said policy guide lines did not attract any encouraging response. In this policy circular the M.C.G.M. had decided to consider only those proposals pending prior to 25.3.1991. However nothing was mentioned for the cases pending for last 12 years i.e. from 1991 to 2003.
Revenue Recovery of M.C.G.M. :
Majority of the cases are pending for prime reason of recovery of payments towards following : -
i) Up to date Revalidation of I.O.D./ C.C. and payment of Fees and Penalty
thereof .
ii) Penalty for work carried out beyond C.C./Approved plans.
iii) Premium for deficient Open spaces
iv) Penalty for unauthorised Occupation
v) Penalty for unauthorised Balcony Enclosures
In above every single case, huge amount is involved only in one item of Revalidation of I.O.D. / C.C. For example : Even if old rates are considered, revalidation fees and its penalty for purely residential building for a average period of 20 years will be worked out to Rs. 240000/- to Rs. 300000/- and shall be doubled for commercial buildings. Considering other additional payments the total payments will run into Lacs of Rupees for a single Occupation.
Revalidation fees & Penalty :
“As per MRTP Act, 1966 and DCR -1991, it is crystal clear that the Development Permission (C.C.) granted u/s 44/69 of MRTP Act is valid for ONE YEAR and can be revalidated for 3 times with aggregate period of 4 years; within which period the applicant can start the work at any time; and if the work could not be started within said 4 years, then fresh Development Permission is necessary”.
Inadvertently it is confirmed that, if the work is commenced within aforesaid 4 years’ period, theDevelopment Permission (C.C.) so granted becomes valid in perpetuity; and needs NO FURTHER REVALIDATION; till the work is completed. There is no provision of Continuous Revalidation of C.C. after work is commenced either in M.R.T.P. Act or in DCR – 1991. Therefore payment of Continuous Revalidation Fees and Penalty thereof does not arise at all.
As a matter of fact, the Corporation is recovering huge amount by way of penalty from the occupants every month by charging practically double property taxes (Assessment) and water charges at commercial rates for over decades in the absence of occupation permission. Therefore the occupants in such cases should not be penalised further for no fault of them. Now enough is enough.
Premium for deficient Open Spaces :
As per policy and set practice the Municipal Corporation do not issue C.C. without recovering premium from the Developer for deficient open spaces. The Municipal Corporation is duty bound to recover such payment, arrears, penalties from those erring applicant developers before full development is permitted. The flat purchasers should not be hanged for the crime committed by others.
When the Municipal Administration is sole responsible for such recoveries from the applicant developer, there is no justification for demand of such recovery from flat purchasers legally or otherwise. The Corporation have full powers to forfeit the deposit amounts lying with them in such cases, which will help revenue recovery to some extent.
Since the Municipal Administration have decided to consider pending Occupation Permissions of those unfortunates who are forced and compelled by the Builders to reside in their own authorised premises without Occupation Permission, it is not difficult for the Municipal Corporation to relinquish this petty revenue on humanitation grounds in public interest; when its yearly budget is much more than any small State Government.
Penalty for unauthorised occupation and Balcony enclosure fees :
The decision of charging Penalty for unauthorised occupation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per flat and balcony enclosure fees / penalty (with / without permission) as per then prevailing rates at the time of approval of proposal to be recovered from flat purchaser, is fair and reasonable since the purchasers had occupied flats without occupation permission and enclosed balconies without approval.
Roll of Public Representatives Organisations; and Hsg. Societies :
It is proven fact that unless and until there is political pressure, the administration will not deliver results, no matter how much important issues are. It is high time that the elected public Representatives at all level should rise above their party politics and come forward to help those needy as their prime social obligation.
The Bombay District Co-op. Hsg. Federation, on apex body of the Co-op. Societies, actually can play very important roll in this situation. Simultaneously the other Co-op. Hsg. Federations / Association has to come together by forming a single platform to create continuous pressure on the State Govt. and Municipal Corporation. Otherwise single handed limited efforts will go to drains only.
Similarly it is prime responsibility of those aggrieved societies to unite together and knock the doors of all concerned authorities as well as public representatives, and have to make sincere efforts in this direction without which this ailment can not be eradicated.
Action Against Erring Builders-Developers :
The Municipal administration should give serious thought in bringing those erring Builders and Developers involve in pending Occupation cases to books by evolving suitable measures to initiate legal action against them and if need be to ‘Black-List’ too. This will give proper signal to all concerned so that relief’s can not be denied to innocent flat purchasers by any agency.
Amnesty Scheme :
M.C.G.M. should come forward in this case as “Special Amnesty” removing all impediments for the benefit of hapless flat purchasers of age old buildings for effective results. This will enhance public image and dignity of the Municipal Corporation and elected public representatives.
Appeal :
PEATA (I) is following this issue with Municipal Corporation continuously for a long time, and prepared to assist any Housing society / Federation / Association and try to obtain pending Occupation Permissions. We will extend all our expertise and co-operation to those needy applicants as a social obligation.
Source: Accommodation Times
No comments:
Post a Comment