AT News : A Welcome Move - not early but overdue by any logic, reasononing or sane thinking !

27th May

Deadline of 5 years is set for private builders to allot possession: DDA

<> The move by DDA is most likely to be unanimously endorsed , and full- throatily voted for , as a right step in the only right and  righteous direction.  Should be so  in the perspective of any one, well-informed or otherwise. Not to speak of the class holding on to ‘unthinking’ as a virtue, and not to be easily aroused; of course, unless and until brought to head-on with a crisis situation. Those have chosen to be ILL-informed or NIL-informed, out of own freewill, or abject ignorance or negligence or some such ilks,

Though certainly late, what is heartening is that it has come to be realised and mooted at least now, by DDA,  instead of never ever, as hitherto.

It is left to the government, it being its prerogative, and its empowered authorities, to make all sincere efforts, also take ideally suited, forcefully effective and wholesome measures, to eventually make the dream come true. Nonetheless, for that to happen, the active , -nay, the proactive - role of the concerned  being  thus far adversely impacted 'people' itself is a must; importance of which would require to be measured, minimum with a tea cup,  not with a tea spoon.
what remains nagging one’s thought is, -should not DDA have covered more areas of equal or more concern, instead of mandating merely  the completion and hand -over of  possession within a time limit.

 The only consolation, if not regret, is that MAHA, that has always in the past in the past given the lead (proved itself the guiding star), could be anticipated to be sufficiently inspired by DDA and follow its steps. It is DDA which  has , lately, proved itself the trend-setter. MAHA., KAR, and other states, in framing its own policies, ought to be mindful of the pressing need for improving upon the common good; and hasten to move forward by  embarking on positive action of the kind required. For that purpose, the guidelines or clues, by whatever name called, provided by the central government in, -(a) the Regulatory Bill, despite long pending for enactment; and (b) the objective behind the 97 th amendment  of the nation's basic charter, which, in any view, cannot be prudently sidetracked or defaced as not in "public interest." in its profoundly far reaching sense

Key Note

It is reported, -  as to whether  the time limit of 5 years as provided in DDA's amended policy is justified or not, and if not what ideally it should be, have given rise to a controversy.  In arriving at a consensus and final decision, however, it might be appropriate to keep in focus also certain other related facets:

Ongoing practice of purchasers being required to keep paying the price in hefty instalments,  as dictated by the promoter, even while the project is in progress, or not;  with no way to  know for certainty, its prospect of actual completion or date; and
the inevitable consequence of, in case of any delay in completion,  the purchaser being confronted with unforeseen problems in successfully availing of the CG tax exemption (reference is to sections 54, 54 EC of the I T ACT), with no hassle whatsoever.

The amended policy of DDA  is said to  provide  that, -  if the builder does not follow the deadline his license will be cancelled and the allotted  land can be seized by the government. What then will happen to the buyers, and how any such seizure as envisaged could serve their purposes seem to be left open.

According to the experts, the period of five years is too much...by investing  entire life’s savings but not getting possession, suffer double loss. interest on home loan of an apartment, which is still under construction and pay the rent.  Three years time period is enough for the built-up.

As regards the failure of the Govt. to provide basic infrastructure facilities, on time, like roads, water, electricity, sewage, etc., builders blaming government, resulting in delays of "completion", so on, as common sense should dictate, that is something to be fully taken care by the government; failing which it should be made liable for all the unsavoury consequences, in monetary terms, or otherwise.
‘

In short, may be, the amended policy itself, in its present form and substance, requires to have a second but close look at, for identifying and adequately covering the foregoing and  all such other aspects , so as to make it more meaningful and purposeful for the 'consumers'.

Cross Refer (for related Blogs) >
 http://praja.in/en/blog/m...

  (Unedited)

 TOI

PF set to cover all pay, not jut basic

Why are political heavyweights so silent over Srinivasan? - The ...

'As a society, BCCI answerable to TN govt' - The Times of India