Dreams of Gpas Turning Into Nightmare.

Dreams of GPAs turning into nightmare…

Satish Chandra Sharma M.A. (Eco), Delhi.

The dream of 15000 GPA holders of General Power of Attorney in the city’s cooperative house building societies is turning into nightmare thanks to the dilatory tactics of the Chandigarh Administration on transfer of flats on their names, vis-à-vis the people friendly rules   followed by states of  Punjab, Haryana and Delhi.

The societies had been in a long drawn battle for decades with the Chandigarh Administration to get land allotted to them. Meanwhile Chandigarh Housing Board had been earning interest running into several crores on the initial amounts deposited by the societies.

During the intervening period the rate of land to be allotted to these societies had been raised from Rs. 750/- PSY to Rs. 2500/-.Protests were lodged against this discriminatory increase. An option was also given to these societies to get land allotted on free hold on payment of Rs. 350/- PSY. This was opted by practically every society. Though this was after inordinate delay in allotment of land.

In a major relief to General power attorney (GPA), group housing societies, the Chandigarh administration provided a reprieve by reducing lock in period of sale of flats from five years of completion to five years from allotment of land. Though this was an error corrected. Transfer of flats seemed to become a reality.

However, the demon of administration appeared on the scene and while a policy document was to be drafted to give relief to the holders of GPA, an unprecedented charge was sought to levied taking recourse to rules, Byelaws and Act that were remotely connected with the process. The administration under RTI has furnished that it is taking recourse to Rule 8-C of the Chandigarh Sale of Sites and buildings Rules 1960 and Rule 17 (10) of Chandigarh Lease hold sites Rules 1973 as the case may be, is one thing which I have been vehemently opposing.

An amount of one third “unearned increase (difference between allotment price and market price)”has been sought to be recovered from the GPA subject to condition that the buyer is eligible for holding a residential property in the city under the provisions of the cooperative Act. Society shall obtain occupation certificate on making full payment for the land after completion of the dwelling units as per the lay out plan.

The transfer policy notified by the Chandigarh did not catch the fancy of the GPAs and earned ire of all and sundry. Chandigarh Social Welfare Council took up the issue. Council termed it as violative of the rules, byelaws governing the Chandigarh Allotment of Land to Cooperative Societies Scheme 1991. This, I strongly believe, has led to simply defeating the very purpose of the notification.

I am at loss to understand the justification of the finance department of Chandigarh as to how a free hold property can attract an unearned increase? The contradiction lies in the simple fact that the administration has adopted two different modes of allotment of land to societies. One being leasehold allotment and the other the free hold. Administration is at a confused end and it is arbitrarily applying one set of rules which end up in chaos. How can one justify application of rules that were framed for lease hold societies on properties allotted on free hold? How can one justify application of old rules when new rules have been framed in 1996 making eligible CHB flat owners as well as other categories of properties to convert from lease hold to free hold even during barred period? Cooperative societies, allotted land on lease hold tenure are one such category of property made eligible for conversion under these 1996 rules. Has the administration ever made any announcement on the modalities to be followed in such cases? No the administration is content at causing a muddle.

The muddle seems to have been created by the handiwork of all those related with the subject. On one hand administration agrees to convert the lease hold flats/plots into free hold under the 1996 rules, which rules absolve the transferee to pay any unearned increase. Then it allots land on free hold basis and for transfer of free hold flats instead of Rule 8-C of 1996(which absolve the transferee of any unearned increase) rules applies rule 8-C of 1960 (having provision of 33% unearned increase for permission to transfer during the barred period) after the lock in period has elapsed.

The opinion of the Ld. RCS, who opined that the transfer of the flats in the society flats should attract only a small sum as transfer fee has been ignored obviously because of the muddle created by babus of the finance department. The fact of the matter is that the administration is resorting to apply rules which were framed for lease hold properties that it is erroneously applying on free hold property.

Another faux pass of the administration is its adamancy to apply rules from its archive that have been superceded by law/rules on the same subject. Like Rules of 1960 especially sub rule 8-C should get replaced by Rule 8-C of 1996 By doing so, administration would stand to get corrected of all the anomalies it is committing on the issue of the transfer of the society flats on the names of the GPA.

Pertinent questions relevant here are: Did the administration charge any unearned increase while giving its consent for substitution of the members (who in fact were GPA hold